Candidate Review - Fair Trade - Dennis Kucinich

This weeks subject is free trade/fair trade. I like fair trade as a concept a bit better, but the basic question is how we should engage the rest of the world on a trade basis. First up? Dennis Kucinich. Who does not seem to be a fan of free trade. He hasn't fleshed out his policy yet, although he promises to do so. Currently, under the heading "Saving Capitalism" is this phrase.

As President, Dennis Kucinich will end America's participation in NAFTA and the WTO. Huge, multi-national corporations ship American jobs overseas, turn a blind eye to human rights abuses and hide behind their lobbyists in Washington.

Not sure exactly how that is going to save capitalism. I mean you can connect some dots; by making capitalism more humane you keep the people from destroying it. But it's pretty inhumane now, and people don't seem inclined to rise up. So I don't know. Perhaps we'll learn more when he finishes off this section, but by that time I will surely have forgotten that I care.

Hillary Clinton vs. Rush Limbaugh

Kevin McCullough's latest article takes an unusual tack - he asks Talk Radio to lay off of Ms. Clinton. Not what you normally expect, but he makes a good case for it. Hillary Clinton can't lose fighting conservative talk radio. Conservative talk radio's audience is not in play for Clinton anyway and the argument gains her sympathy (and shores up her liberal credentials such as they are).

Of course what's a Conservative article about Hillary without a little misogyny.

Women - vote irrationally. Some women will be offended by the observation but most will agree, women do not vote according to what they know. They tend instead to vote based on intuition. They get "a feeling" about a candidate and that's what they trust.

Thank you McCullough. But some woman might not actually agree with this, particularly if you exclude Ann Coulter from your survey.

Friday Beats - Sasha - "Involver"

I love a good mix CD. For those of you who don't know, a Mix CD is when a DJ takes about 10 to 20 songs and mixes them into a continuous mix, as he or she might do on the dance floor (in fact many of the best Mix CDs have connections to a specific club, like the Fabric and Fabriclive series). The attempt is to recreate what one does on the dance floor with a few caveats. You only get between 70-80 minutes on a CD and you get 3 or 4 hours on a dance floor, so naturally you have to compress it (a few CD series use Double CDs, such as the Global Underground. Most of Paul Oakenfold's Mixs are also Double disks, which I feel adds very little).

Sasha's Involver is a somewhat different beast than the normal Mix CD. He only has 10 tracks, and each of them he remixed heavily before bringing into this mix. I only have familiarity with a few tracks here away from this mix, but you can certainly hear the difference on those tracks. In general he seems to have smoothed them out, taken them down to a sound closer to his roots in Trance. This isn't really a trance mix, per se (and honestly I'm not an expert on genre differentation anyway), but there is a bit of the smoothness, the coolness I associate with Trance.

What I love about this mix is how it flows in and out. There are several bits, particularly the opening track (Grand National's "Talk Amongst Yourselves" and UNKLES ("What Are You To Me") where the mix pushes itself in the foreground and I hum along. But for much of the mix it sits comfortably in the background, grooving up my mind but not forcing itself on me. It's a mix I'm very comfortable playing with friends around, because it will just flow along, adding enjoyment with out derailing conversations.

But then another wave flows up and you realize you are bobbing your head to it again.

It's hard to find a video for a Mix CD as you might imagine, but here is a video using one of the Remixes of songs on this album (Petter's "These Days") - called Symphony for the Stoned. It's a collection of pictures set to trance music.



Anyway well worth seeking out.

Candidate Revew - Abortion - Wayne Wilson

Sorry busy week this week. And I know a lot of you have been waiting to see what Wayne Wilson has to say about Abortion. Well plenty as you might expect.

In the meantime, as soon as I take office I’ll turn loose the full weight of the federal bureaucracies against all those who take innocent life. I’ll direct OSHA, the FBI, the EPA, and any other agency I can think of to inhibit, regulate, and burden the abortion industry. If the bureaucrats there refuse, I’ll fire them and replace them with those who will. They are to serve at the pleasure of the administration.

I will sign any restriction of abortion that crosses my desk. I will direct the U.S. Attorneys to de-fund and sue for triple punitive damages under RICO statutes all the pro-death groups. I will do my best to completely shut down abortion even without a Human Life Amendment or new pro-life legislation.

He also believes that Liberals think with our genitalia, or, to use his own words, "These people don’t think with their heads nor do they feel with their hearts. Their thought processes come from below the belt." I could be wrong, now that I reread that - maybe he thinks liberals think with their knees. Or ankles.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm not sure about directing the EPA to work on fighting abortion. Isn't that outside their mandate?

Candidate Revew - Abortion - Fred Thompson

As longterm readers of the site know (long term in this case being defined as the last two weeks), I am doing candidate reviews; taking the candidate and reviewing their statements on the issue from their individual websites. Unfortunately, last week when I was doing Abortion I forgot to do Fred Thompson.

Not as big a lapse as it seems, after all, as his website is one of the few Republican ones to not reference Abortion prominently. He does talk on Building strong families, but doesn't reference Abortion specifically. There is this line under "Building Strong Families."

Returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities—the states—and then protecting states from further intrusion by the federal government, the judiciary, and other states.

That could refer to Abortion, but not directly. He did make some comments at the recent Values Voters summit that shed a bit more light on his opinion on Abortion.

And I'm proud to say that over eight years on national issues, I was a consistent conservative -- cutting taxes, balancing the budget, reducing regulation, promoting welfare reform, fighting for good conservative judges with a hundred percent pro-life voting record, and I'm proud of that record. (Applause.) That's who I was then, that's who I am today, and that's the kind of president I would be.

Perhaps Thompson feels secure enough in his record on abortion that he doesn't feel the need to underline his position.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Mitt Romney

I did Romney last last week too - I'll have to remember to do him first this upcoming week. Haven't decided on a subject yet - probably something like immigration or tort reform. Anyway Romney has some standard statements on the War on Terror, which is the only part of foreign policy that most Republican Candidates care about.

The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.

Seems a bit humdrum, but at least he has heard of diplomatic tools, which is more than many of his competitors.

He also has a bit on competing with Asia, which is apparently a big concern of his.

China and the rest of Asia are on the move economically and technologically. They are a family oriented, educated, hard-working, and mercantile people. We must be ready and able to compete. This means ensuring our children are educated to compete in this new market, our trade laws are fair and balanced, and our economy and tax laws welcome new investment. If America acts boldly and swiftly, the emergence of Asia will be an opportunity. Trade and commerce with these huge new economies can further strengthen our economy and propel our growth. If America fails to act, we will be eclipsed.

Does sound a bit like we need to control them or they'll beat us, doesn't it?

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Duncan Hunter

Duncan Hunter, like the bulk of the 2nd tier candidates, favors a more military based Foreign Policy. He does have a very large section on this actually. Let's pick out some highlights.

I believe in peace through strength. I believe in a policy that supports U.S. interests by spreading freedom within the limits of U.S. capability. I also believe in ending the one-way street on trade.

Very simple and straightforward, with some key words. Such as "within the limits of U.S. capability." That translates to "We can bomb the hell out of nations but we can't do a damn thing about human rights." And of course that list bit marks him as at least open to economic isolationism.

He confirms this by arguing that the Bush administration has been working too closely with the Mexican and Canadian Government. He is also almost as concerned about boarder security as Tom Tancredo. But he's not a one note candidate. He also dislikes treaties.

Treaties that infringe on basic U.S. sovereignty should be rejected while international treaties that rein in tyrants may be of value.

That's a pretty fine line isn't it? Oh and it's reign.

America is good so should not be bound by treaties, but if punks in other parts of the world will let themselves be bound by treaties, there's nothing wrong with that. It's Bush's unilateralism more or less.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Fred Thompson

By the number Fred has a by the numbers response on Foreign Policy. He is starting to strike me as the "safe" candidate for conservatives. He's not given to cross dressing or fits of temper or being a Mormon. That said, he's not given to being all that exciting (so far) either.

His statement on the War on Terror is pretty straight forward.

The first responsibility of government is to protect the American people, the homeland, and our way of life. Today we face the urgent threat of radical Islamic terrorists. Al Qaeda is committed to attacking us here at home, and wants to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to kill millions. We must never give them that opportunity. We must defeat the terrorists abroad, and that begins in Iraq and Afghanistan—the central fronts in this global war. We must show the world we have the will to fight and win. A weakened America - or an America that appears weaker - will only encourage further attacks. We must persevere. As Commander-in-Chief, the president must ensure the United States has the means to achieve victory. Presidential leadership requires talking to the American people about these stakes, mapping out a clear vision for success, and devising a comprehensive strategy for achieving it.

Hard to argue with this (if you are a Republican).

He does also note that he does want to strengthen or alliance by committing to "A strengthened system of global alliances to better combat terrorists, proliferators, and traditional threats to our interests." I don't know how he is going to build alliances with people pissed off at what President Bush had done while continuing to do pretty much what President Bush has done. Won't that just continue to piss them off?

Edited to add - Apparently I forgot to capture Thompson's view s on Abortion last week, and of course I forgot Wilson because I was not aware of his existence, so look forward to that tomorrow.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Wayne Wilson

Yeah, I never heard of this guy either, but I caught one of his local radio spots. Still we should give everybody a fair hearing. So let's see what he has to say about the War on Terror.

Liberals are backing down again. It is so simple for them; the "best way to avoid war is not to have enemies." Why didn't someone think of that before? No, like the Nazis and the Soviets, these latest bullies will keep coming, whether we want them as enemies or no. But this time they're wearing turbins, not brown shirts. Instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat, they spread out their little tyrants in a kind of time-share program.

Well that's kind of interesting - anything else Mr. Wilson?

It would be nice if we could sit down and come to terms with these people. But you can't reason with people who strap bombs on to children, who roast eleven-year-old boys alive and feed them to their parents. How do you negotiate with filthy animals that make women wear black gunny sacks to hide all their bruises and wounds from their husband's beatings. What is there to discuss with perverts that give nine-year-old girls in marriage to seventy-year-old geezers? Pay them off? Not for long. Diplomacy? No, we're going to have to kill them, and the sooner, the better.

Thank you Mr. Wilson.

I'm sorry we haven't given more time to Mr. Wilson's trenchant insights, but I can assure you we will have plenty from him in the future.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Ron Paul

Listening to the Herbalizer right now - Take London. Probably good music to discuss Ron Paul too.

Ron Paul is the one Republican opposed to the Iraq War (which we will surely discuss two weeks hence when we do Iraq), but the rest of his foreign policy is pretty well summed up by one word - Isolationism.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

. . . Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

I guess he means we should be isolationist when it comes to the Government, but open and outgoing when it comes to people and the economy. While I think we need to remain engaged (and yes, through the United Nations), this does sound a bit better than the Bush policy of continuous preemptive war.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Rudy Giuliani

Some of you will be excited to know that excerpts from Rudy's recent appearance on the Glen Beck Show are available. One can presume that Rudy mentioned 9/11, but I have a job to do and it doesn't include wasting time reading that interview.

Like others, Giuliani doesn't have a section on foreign policy, rather he has a section on the War on Terror.

Rudy Giuliani believes winning the war on terror is the great responsibility of our generation. America cannot afford to go back to the days of playing defense, with inconsistent responses to terrorist attacks, because weakness only encourages aggression. Americans want peace. We’re at war not because we want to be, but because the terrorists declared war on us—well before the attacks of September 11th. Rudy understands that freedom is going to win this war of ideas. America will win the war on terror.

Ah - good news. Apparently we just have to sit around and wait for freedom to get in gear and win the war on terror for us.

Actually this is good strategic planning on Rudy's part. Terrorism is an abstract concept, a tactic. How do you defeat an abstract concept? Send in another abstract concept!

Like other republicans, Rudy sees diplomacy as not worth mentioning. Not sure I buy that.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Tom Tancredo

Tom Tancredo cares about immigration. And not about foreign policy. I suspect he knows he's a no-hoper and so is just out there to jab the other candidates about immigration so as to push them closer to the right answer. Anyway the closest he gets to foreign policy is Homeland Security which covers, naturally enough, Illegal Immigration.

Homeland security plans which do not include enforcing our immigration laws and securing our borders are entirely inadequate. A CIS study of 94 terrorists prosecuted for their crimes in the U.S., found that nearly two thirds had committed immigration fraud. It is difficult then to justify the rigor, expense, and inconvenience of new safety measures at our airports and harbors, while leaving the door open for terrorists to slip across our southern border undetected.

He's kind of a blank slate on Foreign Policy, and, frankly, foreign policy is a pretty big chunk of the President's job. But then if you aren't really playing to win, you have a bit of leeway to ignore things that don't interest you.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - John McCain

John McCain doesn't have a Foreign Policy section - he has a National Security section. Or why talk to people when you can blow them up?

The global war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threats from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, and the rise of potential strategic competitors like China and Russia mean that America requires a larger and more capable military to protect our country's vital interests and deter challenges to our security. America confronts a range of serious security challenges: Protecting our homeland in an age of global terrorism and Islamist extremism; working with friends and partners overseas, from Africa to Southeast Asia, to help them combat terrorism and violent insurgencies in their own countries; defending against missile and nuclear attack; maintaining the credibility of our defense commitments to our allies; and waging difficult counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.

. . . As President, John McCain will strengthen the military, shore up our alliances, and ensure that the nation is capable of protecting the homeland, deterring potential military challenges, responding to any crisis that endangers American security, and prevailing in any conflict we are forced to fight.

I hate to repeat myself, but yeah, if you like what Bush has done to "protect" this nation, you won't get any changes out of McCain.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Alan Keyes

Well Alan Keyes is too mighty to even mention diplomacy, in his section on Foreign Policy (or, more specifically, the war on terror, because that is the only foreign policy issue worth mentioning). In a world of Good and Evil Diplomacy serves no purpose. Apparently.

"What do you do about the war on terror" is like asking, "Do you want to die." No we don't — therefore we must defend ourselves against this threat, and we have no option and no choice. The issue is how are we going to fight it most effectively, how are we going to make sure we go after the terrorists and pre-empt their violence and destroy them before they destroy us?

. . . It turns out that the key to victory or defeat is moral understanding. The Islamic fascists are evil, and it is right to defend ourselves against them. But we do not fight them because they are Islamic, or even because they are fascists. We fight them because, by their practice of terror, they prove themselves to be people who have no regard for the fundamental tenets of decent conscience that we believe must be respected when human beings deal with one another, even in war.

So if you like preemptive war, you'll love Alan Keyes. Apparently.

Myself, I'm kind of glad he's another no-hoper.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Mike Huckabee

Were I not stuck with this post titling system, I would change the title of this post to "Set Yourself on Fire," the stars song. In a moment you will see why.

Huckabee has three seperate foreign policy pages, all dealing with issues - he has Foreign Policy Iraq (which, as previously noted, is a subject for another week), he has Foreign Policy Israel, and Foreign Policy War on Terror. Foreign Policy War on Terror has most of the relevant bits, talking about the balance between war and Diplomacy, and an interesting mythological reference.

I believe that we are currently engaged in a world war. Radical Islamic fascists have declared war on our country and our way of life. They have sworn to annihilate each of us who believe in a free society, all in the name of a perversion of religion and an impersonal god. We go to great extremes to save lives, they go to great extremes to take them. This war is not a conventional war, and these terrorists are not a conventional enemy. I will fight the war on terror with the intensity and single-mindedness that it deserves.

. . . While I prefer America to be safe and secure within her own borders rather than loved and appreciated abroad, I believe we can accomplish both goals. We can resurrect relationships with our allies and neighbors. With a focus on renewed diplomacy and inclusion, we can accomplish the goals of our nation without having to go it alone.

When the sun rose on September 11, we were the only superpower in the world; when the sun set that day, we were still the only superpower, but how different the world looked. During the Cold War, you were a hawk or a dove, but this new world requires us to be a phoenix, to rise from the ashes of the twin towers with a whole new game plan for this very different enemy. Being a phoenix means constantly reinventing ourselves, dying to mistakes and miscalculations, changing tactics and strategies, rising reborn to meet each new challenge and seize each new opportunity.

So you see President Bush's self-immolation foreign policy strategy makes sense after all. He wants us to rise from the ashes.

At any rate, while Huckabee wants you to know about the other tools in his foreign policy toolbox, War still seems to be the big one.

I'm going to forgo on Israel for now; that might well make a subject for another week as well.

This is Great!

Tony Blankley's latest article is entitled "Small Tent Conservatives." I love that. Naturally it's about how mean libertarians and old school conservatives are picking on Mike Huckabee, which is exactly like Dobson threatening to vote third party if Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination.

My goodness, professional conservative activists and commentators certainly are busy these days trying to put up a pup (rather than a three-ring) tent for the GOP. A few weeks ago, it was social conservatives reading Giuliani out of the party. Now, in an almost Sicilian revenge pattern, several free-market, low-tax conservatives are coming after Mike Huckabee with baseball bats -- or perhaps with badminton rackets (given the elite Eastern origins of the attackers.)

Does anybody else get the impression that Blankley is a lot more interested in defending Huckabee than Giuliani? I mean there aren't any mocking descriptions of Dobson's followers are there?

It will be interesting to see what happens if the Republican Party puts of Giuliani and the Religious Conservatives largely bolt. Would Republican pundits like Rush or Coulter or, well, Blankley continue to kiss their collective behinds? Or follow them?

At any rate the point to this article is that Conservatives should be united. A party united cannot be divided. Or so the cheer goes.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - John Edwards

Edwards is somewhat focused on Iraq and Iran in his foreign policy (subjects we will, of course, return to). Hence his generic foreign policy statement comes across as kind of, well, generic.

Our standing in the world has been badly tarnished in recent years. America must once again be looked up to and respected around the world.

Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq and the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months. We must also lead on the great challenges like ending the genocide in Darfur and the conflict in Uganda and fighting global poverty and diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

A strong, principled national security policy is the foundation of America's strength. We must strengthen homeland security, stand by our soldiers at every turn, while respecting the Constitution and living up to our ideals in the fight against terrorism.

Pretty generic, but not too bad, all things considered.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Dennis Kucinich

All Dennis is saying is give peace a chance.

Actually this is one of Kucinich's strongest issues because he didn't vote for the Iraq War Resolution, and it has to drive him and his supporters nuts that he was right on the most defining issue of our day and somehow gets no credit for it. That said his page on foreign policy does read a bit like something from the sixties.

The United States must now embrace strength through peace. Because we spend more than the rest of the world combined we will clearly remain the world’s most powerful nation. But with that power comes a great responsibility. We must use our unrivaled power to lead, not to bully, the rest of the world. War must truly become the last desperate measure of self defense, not the handy policy tool it is now used for.

. . . By abandoning the arrogant “my way or the highway” attitude we can reengage the world in productive discussion on our common goals of universal peace and prosperity. Maintaining our current course of action will only end with a world in flames and economic ruin.

I largely agree with Kucinich, but not sure this is an ideal way of setting up his policy - it almost reads like a parody of what Liberals believe on Foreign Policy.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Barack Obama

Obama's page on foreign policy has the interesting name "Strengthening America Overseas." I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. America, with the exception of Hawaii and Alaska isn't overseas. It's right here. Oh well. Let's see what he has to say about foreign policy and diplomacy.

Obama rejects the notion that the American moment has passed and believes that America must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. Obama believes that America must lead the world, by deed and example, and that America cannot meet the threats of the century alone and that the world cannot meet them without America.

The section links to a speech by the candidate, which is a good idea.

This election offers us the chance to turn the page and open a new chapter in American leadership. The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it.

This will require a new spirit – not of bluster and bombast, but of quiet confidence and sober intelligence, a spirit of care and renewed competence. It will also require a new leader.

He has five areas he wants to focus on - Ending the Iraq War, Rebuilding the Military, Destroying Weapons of Mass Destruction, Renew International Alliances, and Strengthen Weak Nations. I guess there is something there for everybody; although our adventures in strengthening weak nations haven't been 100% positive.

Candidate Review - Foreign Policy - Hillary Clinton

Let's do Hillary Clinton in the middle this week. Her statement, entitled "Restoring America's Standing in the World" is very professional and clean. The real challenge for Hillary isn't winning people over to her side; it's keeping from making any exploitable mistakes. And she seems to avoid that pitfall here.

Americans are ready for a leader who will restore America's reputation in the world, and Hillary is prepared to lead America back in the right direction.

The next president's most urgent task will be to restore America's standing in the world to promote our interests, ensure our security, and advance our values.

America is stronger when we lead the world through alliances and build our foreign policy on a strong foundation of bipartisan consensus.

One interesting sideline; Clinton does make sure to underline her friendship with Israel.

Hillary has steadfastly fought for Israel's right to exist peacefully and to defend its people against terrorism. She has condemned Hamas's rise to power. She has spoken out against the problem of anti-Semitism in Palestinian textbooks and condemned Iran's conference on the Holocaust.

I guess that is necessary, but I'm not sure I've seen other candidates doing it. And, of course, a reference to Israeli violence against the Palestinian people wouldn't be a bad idea.