Democratic Prez Endorsement--Pt 2

Tactical Endorsement

Now would seem the time to put one's weight behind a candidate.

My intention was to keep the 2008 election in 2008--endorsements, contributions, polemics--and keep the thing at a distance until it's time. That seems fine with regard to the elections at state level. Rather than blanket contributions to the DSCC, I will be helping individual candidates in races that matter, and I can decide those much later, once the choices are clearly before us.

Unfortunately, while I like the Unofficial National Primary as a means for the parties to choose their nominees for President (the date is declared by the parties, and states can go before or after, or on it), February 5 is ridiculously early. It should be in May or June.

The Republicans can kick each other all the way to the convention, and I'll be pleased. It seems, though, that because of substantial leads that Hillary holds in many of the key states after the show gets on the road, the road race in the Democratic party is all about the first lap after the green flag. If Hillary pulls even a narrow victory out of Iowa, she will quickly be anointed, based on the expectations set by polls in states like New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, and California. Something has to interrupt that apparent momentum in Iowa.

So, with only 36 days, it's time to decide on an endorsement. Let's try to use logic and see where it points us.

Hillary or Other/Than Hillary (O/TH)?
This is the main line of demarcation for most every Democrat I've spoken with. Is there someone who's improvement enough on the Clinton Brand to justify putting roadblocks in her path?

The answer to this turns on four points, four "abilities": to get the nomination, to get elected, to govern successfully (at least our federal government), and to lead the country (and the world, insofar it has anything to do with US) toward a future worth living in.

We'll go into the last item more in Part 3 of the serialized endorsement--the discussion of policies and expected realities resulting from those policies. No one could deny that each of the first three points, though, is a sine qua non: we're not talking third-party Presidency here, not that anyone has explained how that could possibly work.


The only core scenario that makes any sense is a massive anti-Bushite victory in a referendum on the last eight years, and it's not farfetched at all. So, part of that governability requirement is bringing about a landslide, with coattails please, for the Democrats.

As I suggested in my Republican-party endorsement for Ron Paul and other postings, since the 2006 debacle there are no more candidates willing to wear a Bushite label. Yet the prevailing stance of the Republican candidates, with Paul's exception, is to accept many Bushite notions and only differ from the Administration on a couple of its qualities, its persistent incompetence being the principal choice. The non-Paul Republicans have in common a set of policy views typified by John McCain's all-but-Bushite (ABB) stance: we will not clamor to change much, except the stupidity we've come to associate with Bushite Misrule.

McCain is notable for presenting this position straightforwardly (and is doomed for it). The other first-tier candidates wear various masks over it: Giuliani the wounded urbanite mask, Huckabee the aw-shucks friendly pastor mask, Thompson occupies some sort of ghoulish re-animated cadaver of a 19th-century constitutional lawyer, and Romney, of course, is the Avatar of Ken.

Compared to these, Clinton is unabashedly and clearly an anti-Bushite and I would not begrudge her place alongside the Bushites' greatest foes. Yet, the question remains: is she sufficiently anti-ABB?

The key question of this election concerns McCain's advocacy of "the long war". He believes this GWOT will continue for generations, and, being honest, he tells us as much. This, not the cut-and-run neo-appeasement he accuses the Democrats of advocating, is the losing strategy. It preserves and enhances the need for continued war-fighting, instead of undercutting it, or better yet, uprooting it.

I want to see this strategy rejected from the 2008 Presidential election. This would be the greatest, most lasting result that could occur. The next President, no matter whom, is likely to be hemmed in and cursed with a lousy economy--a recipe for being outed after one term. Ending this Iraq occupation, and starting the hearts-and-minds effort which will be needed to end the tensions currently generating an unending supply of suicide bombers, are the accomplishments which can be expected (!) of the next President.

It is in this area that I fear Hillary could come up short. Partly because of her political posturing toward the hawkish side, though I recognize she could move once elected. More because of the ambiguity about her desire to go that way. "I will end this war," she says, but we don't know how. Bill reinforces our uncertainty when he claims to have opposed the Iraq invasion from the start.

There's another problem: Hillary winning this thing early means we'd have nine months of Republican Hillary-bashing to look forward to. This will give them plenty of time to propose a host of different angles, see which ones survive the Darwinian battle for our deficient attention spans, and provide the perfect growing environment for the viruses that remain. A sickness that poisons Hillary's candidacy and brings about a fold-up is probably the only thing that could prevent a strong Congressional victory for the Democratic party. The Republicans are counting on a protracted siege of Hillary's Honor and would have to improvise and invent a new game plan should anyone else get the nomination.

We look then, to Other/Than to see who has ideas to turn this thing in a new direction. Kucinich has the model answer (as he does for so many of the principal issues), but we all know what a weak vessel he is; in a general election tussle he's be an easy target to Swiftboat. Dodd I don't see rocking this boat of GWOT.

Biden and Richardson meet the general election requirement, so the question turns on the ability of either to get the nomination. Despite strong, and improving, performances in debates by both of them, Richardson gets no respect from the national media, while Biden has not succeeded in getting the voters' attention. I don't see a single state before the Unofficial National Primary where either could possibly win, so each will be put in the position of folding up his tent a few days this side or the other of Feb. 5.

We are left with the eternal question that has haunted our household for months: Edwards or Obama? Tactically, Edwards needs to win Iowa, while Obama just needs for Hillary not to win it. So, if we want to preserve our options, we should look for Edwards to win this round and Hillary to finish third.

Such a stance is little better than prevarication, though: we'd just be putting off the decision and letting events make up our mind. And such a fragile thread of hope such as Edwards' seems unlikely to hold, and his chances of governing seem doubtful. I see a potential Edwards Administration threatening to be like Jimmy Carter's--nice grin, Southern accent, good man, lousy President.

Obama is the only candidate whose promise includes the ability to win the nomination, win clearly against an ABB candidate (with or without Bloomberg in the race), carry the party to victory, yet preserve some hope of outreach to the defeated opposition.

We look for Obama to sweep up Edwards' Iowa caucus supporters in cases when they need to relocate to second-choices. Though Obama will tolerate the reciprocal movement (unofficially), he will gain on the unspoken deal and thus edge both Hillary and John in that state. He'll get enough momentum to get the message of his viable candidacy across to African-American voters, who will lift him in South Carolina and position him for an upset on UNP Day. After that, we'll see.

For now, it's Obama in '08.

And I didn't even wait until '08 to say it!

Pakistan: Disbelief is Restored from Suspension

I have long argued in chats on foreign policy themes that, if one is looking for a new object of concern about international security, Pakistan is a much more valid choice than Iran. Just two points should make the case:

1) Whatever the probabilities of various nuclear proliferation fears being realized in Iran (and I'd say they are high--50% or more--with our current policy arc, though remote in time), in Pakistan they are 100% proven. With regard to both domestic development and spreading capabilities beyond their borders, which is what the Bomb Iran Now! crowd suggests might happen in the worst-case scenario.

2) Control over Pakistan--under any regime, but especially under this one--is guaranteed to be much more unstable than Iran's has been under the mullahs or likely will be.

I do not argue that Musharraf has not been friend to US; his failures have been due to the limitations of his power rather than his intent. The limitations of the policies he chooses are pretty severe, though, when his own intelligence agency deliberately undercuts them, as with the Taliban.

Benazir Bhutto has made impressive efforts to take on Musharraf: first by daring to trust him, then by staying when her arrival (and the suicide bombing ensuing) demonstrated that he would not or could not protect her, and now by challenging his emergency rule.

Musharraf's recent moves are a good example of the slow-motion train wreck approach to government. He had boxed himself into a position where he had to take the self-destructive course. It reminds me somewhat of Indira Gandhi's emergency rule in India in 1969, and the outcome will be similar: some day he will allow an election, and then in that initial election, the Pakistani majority vote will be for the party that most thoroughly repudiates Musharraf before finding a new balance. Bhutto is positioning herself well for that day, whether it come sooner or later.

Udall In!

The national party leaned on Tom Udall to go after the Senate job opened up by Pete Domenici's announcement that he will retire, and now Tom is announcing that he will go for it.

Up until now, we stayed with our position, announced even before Domenici's admission of his illness and intention to retire (see our previous endorsement, made in June!) that the best person to run for the seat is Bill Richardson, who would have a brief window to change course, plow his remaining funds over, and announce before the deadline and after February 5 (I feel that he will be able to keep his candidacy viable until then).

That Udall's even considering running seems to indicate that Bill is unlikely to waver from his Executive Branch-headed course (for example, he would certainly be on Hillary's short list for V.P. , or some other senior Cabinet position, if it goes her way). His decision only came after consultation with Richardson, whom Udall boldly endorsed. No, seriously: it was bold, though perhaps also easy.

Udall's going in to the race changes things--we would shift from our endorsement of Richardson and our contingent endorsement of Martin Chavez. Udall's about as good a candidate as one could find, from a policy point of view, and would be nearly as strong as Bill Richardson. He should be able to defeat either Wilson or Pearce handily.

The Senate seat will be the headliner, but the real news will come in the scramble for all three of the state's House seats. All will be opened up if Udall, Wilson, and Pearce run--and the best thing is that, at most, one of the Republicans will still have a Congressional job!

Right now, we have two good-to-great Congressional reps (Udall and Sen. Bingaman) and three not-so-good-to-awful ones (Wilson, Pearce, and Domenici). What we want from the 2009 Congressional delegation is four of the former category, conceding the Republicans the House member from the southern part of the state. We need Udall to win, along with a decent (moderate Democratic) House representative from the middle, Albuquerque-centered district Heather Wilson now represents, and, perhaps the longest shot, we would need one of the better choices among the many Democratic hopefuls in the north-central district Udall now has.

We won't get a House member as good as Tom, but we will strive to identify someone honest and progressive and get behind such a Democrat. This race may require more direct involvement than I am generally willing to give, and on a personal basis may pre-empt general contributions to the DCCC. Similarly, while I always gave when Udall asked (and he usually only asked once per campaign), the financial needs for the Senate race for Udall will doubtlessly feel more immediate (and will soak up funds for DSCC).

The candidates are rapidly lining up. 2008 looks like a watershed year for the state, with most everyone running for something (for what Richardson will end up running, I'm not sure). Diane Denish is the one exception, as she has the inside track for the governor's job when Richardson's turn would naturally end, in 2010, or sooner if he gets a new job.

Democratic Prez Endorsement--Pt 1

I want to begin this discussion by singing the praises of someone whom I will not be endorsing for the nomination anytime soon: Hillary Clinton.


It is not faint praise when I say sincerely that she has the potential of having the best administration of my lifetime, so that we can envision going from the worst to the best in one step.


I do not blame her for some obfuscation on selected wedge issues, unlike some of her chief opponents for the nomination with her party, whose motives are obvious. I do not believe that her problem is an absence of clearly-announced positions; it is that she does not want to be boxed in, and that is appropriate given her present role as the focus of all attention (in either party). It is smart for her to do so, and generally, she's just plain smart. Well-disciplined, too (her husband's downfall). So, there is much to hope for with her, and I will readily settle if that is what it comes to.


Still, I can hope for better. I am persuaded by the War of the Roses argument that the national tickets of the last two-plus decades have shown a surfeit of Bushes and Clintons. We do not need another chapter (or two, when Jeb runs against her in 2012). Doing the Bill Clinton Administration without the sexual hijinks would've been great in 2000-2008, but we need to look toward the future.

It is a bit unfair to suggest Hillary doesn't look to the future, but it is not unfair to suggest her appeal is largely based on a desire to re-run the last decade or so--with edits.

John Edwards has now proved that he is the Democratic opponent with the best chops at getting Hillary. He's well informed, polite, but tough on her. The fact that he's the best at taking her down, though, does not constitute grounds for an endorsement. Barack Obama's strategy would seem to be a better one for getting elected: let Edwards bring her down to size, then he can take them both on without getting his reputation dirty.

NYT haiku challenge

My entry:


Vindicate Torre
Through seven straight years' downfalls
Close the door now, Joe.

The BoTox Dynasty

It is not too soon to declare the Boston RedSox' firm, likely recurring grip at the top of the major leagues' greased flagpole of the present and near future--in the modern parlance of short-lived phenomena, "a dynasty".

Perhaps it is too soon to declare this the Red Sox' century, in the sense that the 20th--at least since the Red Sox traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees--was the Yankees' Century. 24 or so World championships in 78 years for the Cranks: Botox so far in the 21st has two of seven (remember, 2000 was so last century), so a similar pace. A couple-three Series Championships a decade is all it takes to stand alone, above.

They are the only team with two titles since the new millennium, however one defines that milestone. It also looks as though there will be more to come: Dustin Pedroia, Jacoby Ellsbury, and now Jon Lester being the key indicators. Moneyball combines with Steinbrenner-like funding and Theo Epstein is elevated above all.
Let the legends begin: "When John Henry was a little baby...."

The only question seems to be whether to upgrade 3B from Mike Lowell to A-Rod. I'm a Lowell fan and have watched his flirtation with fame; here's a guy who was perennially underrated (unless you expected something from him, in which case he underperformed). This was his best regular season yet, and he topped it off with a brilliant postseason performance. He will certainly be overpaid next year, but I'm happy for him wherever he may go.

As for A-Rod, I would say his announcement last night showed excellent timing given today's news. This way, it doesn't seem as though he didn't want to play for Joe Girardi (which he may need to do in a couple of years for some other team). Just not these Yankees. The fact that it will cost Steinbrenner $20 million or so in Rangers' subsidies can only be the icing on the cake.

The thing I'm happiest about in the World Series was the clutch homer by Garrett Atkins in the 8th inning of Game 4 to bring the Rockies within one. In his last at-bat of the season, he might have saved his job--and my Rotisserie team--for 2008.

The Lady V. Speaks (Redacted)

Valerie Plame Wilson's book has come out, heavily redacted. Haven't seen it yet, but I cheer her on: very few have such a clear bone to pick with the Bushites, and does she pick it!

A good time to remind viewers of the link to one of my finest posts on this site: The Lady V., and the Bald Man of WHIG.

Justice is waiting......

Republican Prez Endorsement

I made the mistake in 2000 of taking pleasure in George W. Bush's campaign undermining that of John McCain. McCain was the tough foe I didn't relish Gore taking on; Bush was the lame-o that would be easy meat.

I made a similar error in 1980, though I was out of the country for most of the campaign. I saw Reagan as one of the Republicans' weaker choices and assumed that meant he had little chance of winning, even to the point that I could vote for John Anderson.

The mistake is twofold--one is believing that the American voters will discern the weaknesses in Republican national candidates on their own, i.e. without it being rammed down their throats. The second is to think that it doesn't matter so much which aging white guy sneaks into the White House when we're so busy yelling at ourselves.

Every Republican candidate has to establish his viability in terms of opposition to the Bushite administration in some form. There are so many areas from which a Republican can separate himself from Dubya, though, and he really only needs to pick one or two. Taking issue with the President in too many areas would make one seem disloyal to the party, which is a candidacy-killer. From my point of view, though, purging all possible elements of Bushite Misrule is the top priority for the 2008 Presidential election.

The main facets of Bushite Misrule and the main types of principled distancing are from the following:

1) Bush The Incompetent of Katrina; and its corollary,

1A) Bush the Political Hack.

2) Bush The Neo-Imperialist Neo-Con;

3) Bush The Usurper and Trampler of Constitutional Rights;

4) Bush The Big Spending Phony Conservative; and

5) Bush The Hidden Plutocrat, and its corollary,

5A) Bush the Pollution/Global Warming Enabler.

Examining the anti-Bushite content (if any) of the Republican Presidential candidates' positions and image projections should help identify our preferred nominee--in serious--to help ensure the most anti-Bushite administration possible in 2009, come what may in the intervening 15 months.

So, let's quickly review the candidates and accentuate their good sides--which Bushite facets they oppose:
Giuliani--1) and 4). Of course, Rudy's burnishing his phony conservative credentials, but he hits pretty hard on the fiscal conservatism line. His total endorsement of Bushite GWOT and tendency to create discord make him the worst candidate going. I feel he'd invade Iran, if we haven't already done so by 2009.
Romney--1) and 5). I've detected some sympathy for the underprivileged in Romney's debate performances. It won't help him; of course he himself would be an obvious choice as Chief Plutocrat, in this case not hidden at all. Of course, who can believe anything he says?
Thompson--3) and maybe 4). His nouveau federalist line insulates him a bit from the big spender charge, and logically would also suggest he would come down in favor of some limitations on executive authority. I haven't seen that much evidence that he's opposed Bushite civil liberties abuses, though. Instead, he is associated with Chief Justice Roberts, whose strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitutions allow them somehow.
McCain--3) and 4). He's clearer on his opposition to Bushite civil liberties abuses, and on big spending Republicans.
Brownback--sorry, he's gone. His role as champion of right-wing anti-Bushites has gone, somewhat surprisingly to me, to
Huckabee--2)? Unlike most of the candidates, who earnestly seek new enemies to attack, I feel that Huckabee is looking to reduce our overextended military commitments. He really hasn't separated himself much from Bushite policy much, though; more like he appears to be sensible. This is pretty big for a Republican. He's probably anti-bushite on 1), too.
Hunter, Tancredo--basically no anti-Bushite credentials (except for Tancredo's opposition to Bush's immigration stance, which counts as a negative in my book). No chance for them, either.

We are left with Ron Paul, a bit of a wacko, but who gets credit for 2), 3), and 4). Very strongly so, too. He is likely to pull down the GOP flag and run independently, but that's OK: my recommendation to all Republicans is to vote for Ron Paul, both in the primaries and the general election.

Thompson and McCain seem at least to be honest and respectable and to be capable of forming their own opinions independently of interest-group pressures. Huckabee, too, unless this smiling face is just a mask. These I would accept as worthy of being major-party nominees of this nation, even if their election would be undesirable at this or any other time.

The Last Anno Domenici.....

...it's now within sight (apparently will coincide with the conclusion of Larry Craig's list).

I wish Sen. Domenici good luck with his incipient brain-rotting condition, but his foul luck should be the Democrats' good fortune with regard to his seat.

Heather Wilson may be able to hold the strong military and lesbian voting blocs in New Mexico, or at least their intersection, but she should be tasty fodder for a well-schooled Dem with statewide name recognition.

We made our endorsement months ago and will stand by it: Richardson for Senator! He would, of course, deny any interest in the job while he's still running for President. By Feb. 15, though, he should be clear on the likelihood of that occurrence, and by March 1 he should understand the probability of running in the second spot on the national ticket.
Although he's certain to be short-listed, I'd put my money on the second-place finisher between Hillary (that's right, Hillary!) and Obama. Either would make a superb VP choice, while Bill is just a damned fine one.

If Richardson persists in his determination not to seek the job (and assuming Tom Udall will be unshakable in holding on to his comfortable House seat), my next choice would be the mayor of Albuquerque, Martin Chavez.

GWOT Thoughts

Tim Russert succeeded at the last debate to pin down Democratic candidates on the specific question of the projected American military presence in Iraq for January 20, 2013. There are lots of ways to go at the answer, but it is hard to say that it is in any way an unfair question. Just thinking about it turns the page to a new phase in the political conversation.

Richardson's answer--as contrasted with the three leading candidates'-- may be the most important development in any debate so far and could still propel him upwards toward first-tierness (in spite of the disregard he gets from the national press).

I think he has a very good point, which is: when does the occupation end? Can we claim to have ended it if we go straight into a permanent or enduring basing situation there?

I don't share in the criticism of Edwards' answer, though he did miss the trenchant point. Obama's answer disturbed me: the first time he included "defending bases" in the future mission he'd define; when he came back to it shortly afterwards he dropped the bases. So, which is it?

Meanwhile, we fume about Iran and ignore the question of Pakistan.

Five Goes Into Three...How?

A great situation going into the last weekend with 5 teams competing for three playoff slots in the NL. Cubs and Brewers will compete for the other NL slot, but have no effect on this mess (except for the Brews being the opponents for the 'dres).

The good news is that a five-way tie at the end of the regular season is not possible. The key series, between the D'backs and the Rockies, will end with the Rockies either 1 game ahead of Arizona, or 1, 3, or 5 games behind them.

The bad news is that a meaningful logjam seems probable at 89 wins, at 90 wins, or both. The messiest situation that can probably emerge is a four-way tie behind Arizona, e.g. D'backs at 90 wins and the other four at 89. Then they'd need to do playoffs for both the NL East and WC, with the NL East playoff loser in a highly ambiguous status.

Arizona is the only team that can book its own playoff spot at this point, by winning two or more against the Rockies. Even one win might do it, depending particularly on the Met/Phillies' successes vs. their non-contending opponents.

The three teams that will emerge are a total crapshoot, beyond the D'backs who'd seem to have an edge with Webb tonight.

My picks from this are the Phils (NL East), Mets (WC), and Padres (NL West) (also the Brewers, but let's forget that for the moment). I believe there is no way for these outcomes to emerge directly from the regular season, so I'm rooting for the Rockies, 'dres, and Easterners and expecting my teams to emerge from the improvised one-game playoffs.

Arizona 89-70 3 vs. Colorado
S.Diego 88-71 3 vs. Milwaukee
NYM 87-72 3 vs. Florida
Phila. 87-72 3 vs. Washington
Colorado 87-72 3 vs. Arizona

IRAN: Pre-emptive Action Needed Now

The scuttlebutt among the BTH this week was that Cheney is dissatisfied with the pace of progress against Iran through the diplomatic route. He, along with perhaps a brace or so other residual Bushite chickenhawks, is thinking, so they say, that the USA will need to do something before he and the Bushite Administration sink into the sunset. We know the process: Revisit those contingency plans, start the PR program, make threats, impugn the loyalty of your opponents, make “surgical” air strikes. History will thank us for them.

Perhaps the yammering is due merely to the presence of Iranian President Ahmadinejad in the U.S. for the General Assembly. Certainly he’s inflammatory; just look at the controversies on his laying a wreath at Ground Zero and making a speech at Columbia. (For the record on those minor flare-ups: there was probably a legitimate security concern about his going to the WTC site, and his appearance at Columbia did little credit to him or the University, though it’s good he can’t claim he was censored or silenced.) Ahmadinejad’s a petty despot, a demagogue, an unapologetic hostage-taker and serial liar. Like Bush, he got elected through a fluky combination of circumstances and failed to deliver on his electoral promises to his country. Unlike Bush, he’s not going to be re-elected.

Unless, of course, we take the bait and attack Iran, which will rally nationalistic support behind him. The most important fact to consider regarding Ahmadinejad is that he is not, regardless of his title, the decision-maker in Iran’s government: he’s a puppet of the mullahs, a floater of trial balloons for them. They will serenely sit by and let them pop; on the other hand, they will use any successes he can bring them.

We should insist that Iran live up to the provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory nation. We should make it clear that, far from gaining respect, Iran's regime will be vilified and punished if it goes on to develop nuclear weapons. We should not be goaded and fall foolishly into their trap, nor let the Israelis do it for us.

The measure passed by Joe Lieberman and passed overwhelmingly in the Senate to officially portray the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization is the first planned step in the awful, militaristic drumbeat which leads to madness. Now, before Cheney forms a new WHIG for Iran, we should take pre-emptive action. I call upon Congress to pass a resolution, perhaps as an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill now before it, prohibiting the Bushites from taking aggressive military action against Iran’s territory without specific authorization from Congress. Speaking hypothetically, if that can’t won't protect us against rogue action from our government, I’d suggest some sort of public action to put Cheney in “protective custody” against Iranian threats, or to cut off his “undisclosed location” from communication with the outside world, until January 20, 2009.

We are not “the herds that are feeding yonder, (that) know not the meaning of yesterday or today” (Nietzsche, “The Use and Abuse of History”). We can do better than this.

Run, Larry, Run!

My friend Muhammad Cohen (look for his new HK-handover novel Hong Kong on Air) has a theory that we should distrust anyone with two first names. Don't ask me why, but Larry Craig has once again borne out that theory.

I have to agree with Sen. Craig that he is not "gay"; try "grim, repressed." His inability to keep himself sufficiently in the closet is to be pitied somewhat; his hypocrisy, ordinary enough as it is within his party, only to be scorned. No doubt he pleaded guilty because he felt guilty; only later did he fully realize he hadn't really done anything that could be considered a crime, except in his mind.

So, I say to him, yes, see if you can clear your conviction, get them to throw out your guilty plea. I'd say the same to anyone else who got sandbagged into a plea that didn't really do himself/herself justice and caused harm. Don't resign your seat, and for that matter, don't preclude your options--run for Senate in '08 and defy the party hierarchy!

That last bit is disingenuous: it's probably the only way the Republicans could lose the seat. Still, if he's not satisfied with their mindful, gutless response to his scandal, he should make them take it from him in a primary.

Thompson Gun like Ray-Gun

As the Times put it, Thompson Seeks to Don Reagan Mantle. I don't know what Mickey Mantle has to do with it, or why they misspelled Reagan's former chief of staff Don Regan, but I think they (belatedly) are on the right track, which I explored at length some months ago (stoner: Yearning for Ronnie?).

Anyway, I find Thompson the most likely nominee and a reasonable choice for the Republicans. He should save them from a disaster in their home turf in the South (particularly in the Congressional elections), winning 100-150 electoral votes. Much less risky than going with Giuliani.

The part I find interesting about it all is the treacherous path that Fred will need to tread. Romney seems to have the inside track in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Granted that Thompson should win South Carolina, whenever that comes to pass, I do think there could be a serious three-way showdown (pre-Unofficial National Primary) in Florida among Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney. The result will have national importance and set the stage for the knockout blow the following week. Perhaps there is another, better path; I'm sure that he would love to sweep Iowa off its feet, but it seems unlikely.

I do feel that Thompson's entry sucks the oxygen out of Newt's possible run. I also hope that is true.

Primary Posturing

I applaud the announcement by the principal Democratic candidates that they will forego campaigning in Florida unless or until the state gets its primary/delegat selection act approved by the DNC. Everyone except Kucinich, if I read it right.

The DNC had to take action or face rebellion by yet another state wanting to jump the queue--Michigan. Yes, we are all vitally interested in the states of Michigan and Florida, though I would argue that their being swing states makes them more than likely to get their share of attention in 2008. What we don't want is the primary season moving into 2007, for the love of Fred!

The deal is easy enough to arrange: have a "beauty contest" before Iowa or New Hampshire, if you must, but no delegates will be seated before those states and their dates, which must be fixed.

I disagree with those in Florida who think their Democratic primary will matter, even if no delegates are selected, the candidates don't show, and Hillary wins easily. It would be nice if the primary voters reward Kucinich for his principled pandering with a couple of unseated delegates. Perhaps the situation will be different with the Republicans, as I could see it being quite a close contest between Giuliani and Thompson there, no one is begging off, and the state would only be penalized half its delegates.

Act IV, Scene 1

Petraeus' recitation contained few surprises and little drama, beyond the question of "Who sabotaged the mikes?" The Bushite Scourge will be over by next summer; no plans to go much beyond that during the current administration. Funding commensurate with these planned troop levels will be forthcoming and an approved Congressional resolution to change the timetable from Petraeus' recommendation will not.

The one thing that I heard that was most disappointing is that Iraq's government does plan to authorize "the Coalition" to stay through 2008. That is the one source of potential influence it may have (demanding the withdrawal of foreign forces, or posing a threat to do so), but they don't intend to use it. Worse, I think there will be an agreement for long-term basing of U.S. forces there. To me, that's the equivalent of the government's suicide statement. In Act IV, Iraq will once again be portrayed by a puppet.

What I am most interested in hearing at this point, without giving away too much "freedom of action", is what the Democratic candidates for President will plan to do with the situation that they can clearly anticipate they would inherit:
o) 50-75,000 U.S. troops in Iraq;
o) Ground forces staying mostly in their bases and the Green Zone;
o) Sufficient air resources to take any action needed in the theater;
o) A desperately bad situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan;
o) The Army and Reserve totally depleted, and consistently falling short of recruitment targets;
o) Ethnic cleansing pretty much complete in Iraq; and
o) No political progress.

For that matter, what the Republican candidates would do in that situation, too--maybe they'll have some sort of idea. I doubt it, though.

Slow-Motion Train-Wreck: Act IV

Petraeus will open the final act of the drama in Scene 1 (sounds very Shakespearean, if not Sophoclean). The principal dramatic tension is whether he and Ambassador Crocker will be allowed to mouth their own words, someone else's or whether their words will be "interpreted" by loyal Bushite officials. Regardless of the dramatis personae, the import of the message will be the same and the outcome will, as well.

The Bushite Scourge in Iraq has approximately 8 more months to run (I'd set the over-under bet on the first withdrawals without replacement--sort of like my scalp follicle policy--to begin approximately February 29). By that date, the probable or certain Republican nominee's identity should be known (as it certainly is not today). That White Northern European Male, after evaluating the political challenge posed by his likely or certain November opponent(s), can signal the national party leadership of his political needs, which will most likely be to go the "John Warner" route, i.e., begin token withdrawals now.

Natural rotation out with lesser replacement, along with a new focus on avoiding casualties (a la Vietnam in election years) will bring the level down to 75-80k American forces by the election, which should leave all options open for the 2009-inaugurated President, whatever his/her party affiliation and previous stance on the war.

I continue to find the "debate" a waste of time and effort, even politically (at the strategic level). Few points will be gained for either party in November, 2008 by the outcome that is clearly indicated.

Jack of Hearts, Ace of Spades

Alberto Gonzales bites the dust in typical ignominious Bushite fashion. The honorary family member and never-quite-up-to Attorney General can go back to legal stenography for the Dubya Presidential library. He was scapegoated quite effectively by the legal community when it was clear that he couldn't "not remember" convincingly.

Not so the top-ranked card in the deck, domestic adviser Karl Rove. His plan to build a national Republican dominance is in shambles. He showed himself tactically brilliant but strategically flawed. Since every decision (especially those relating to GWOT) in this White House is politically motivated, if not politically determined, it is hard to pick any Bushite fiasco for which he should not bear personal responsibility.

Still, it is not over, and Rove's move to the outside reflects that. Republicans' re-capturing either house of Congress would seem to be out of the question in 2008, barring a complete Democratic swoon (not out of the question in any election year). The numbers of seats at risk in the Senate put the Republicans in a position to lose 3-5 seats even if they run a good campaign with a good Presidential nominee (both seem unlikely at this point). Larry Craig's is just the latest seemingly-safe Republican-held seat to come into play.

Despite an uninterrupted series of bad news for the party (even the successes they might claim on the ground in Iraq are double-edged, politically), there's still a real chance that the Presidential race could fall their way. About a 41% chance, if one believes the political futures market (I'd say that's about one-fourth too high).

Of the original Bushite deck, the only active face cards are Cheney (Ace of Clubs), Mitch McConnell (Jack of Diamonds), and Dubya (Ace of Hearts). Not enough for an opening bid.

August Excuse Posting

A tough month in which to find time to post has been compounded by the life-and-death struggle for control of this computer with some bad spyware (I blame the kids' downloading for getting it started). So far, it's winning, but this post shows we haven't given up the struggle. Now I know why James T. Kirk would blow up the Enterprise rather than letting powerful alien forces gain control of it. With regard to my predicament, I resist Iraq references playing on "surge", the Iraqi parliament's taking the month off.

We're working on a possible new endorsement (our reader(s) are invited to guess), additional book reviews from the summer reading, and a belated diatribe marking the passing of the Bushite Ace of Spades, that real hot potato head, Karl Rove. Visit this site soon.

Summer Reading II, III--The Predictors; The Black Swan

I've put these two together because they share a theme, one I'm particularly interested in these days: the problem of prediction.



The Predictors, by Thomas A. Bass, is subtitled "How a Band of Maverick Physicists Used Chaos Theory to Trade Their Way to a Fortune on Wall Street". The subtitle takes most of the mystery out of the telling of the story, as they work through their organizational issues, find funding, generate reams of unworkable models, and finally--in the last chapter--actually start making some bucks (1997 or so). The author had chronicled some of the physicists' earlier (unsuccessful) attempt to devise a casino-breaking roulette calculator, and he was in on the discussions from the very beginning. So, that part of it was interesting.


Also interesting, and one that took me back to my own career efforts in the mid-90's, was their attempt to bring in huge data streams, address the predictive qualities of the data, and develop and operationalize models which would predict specific outcomes from the data.

The author made a lot--too much--out of the notion that these geniuses chose to launch their envelope-stretching endeavor from the puny backwater town of Santa Fe.

Their methods made a lot of sense from a model-development and validation point of view, but I felt they were overreaching. Essentially, they wanted data feeds of most everything in order to develop models predicting--almost everything. They should have focused on a few key trading indices and bent all their efforts to find the occasional opportunities these markets produce, instead of trying to get involved in a whole bunch of different markets and trading all the time.


The book needs a postscript, epilogue, or second edition for today's readers to understand how well the approach worked in the long run, through the vagaries and changes in the marketplace (some of which this group may have, in fact, driven), and especially in response to the calamity that occurred 9/11/01. How well did chaos theory (which seems to have more inspired the model-building effort than drving the actual functional models) anticipate and deal with that one, and its aftermath?



Which brings us to the tougher read and subject of critical analysis, The Black Swan (subtitled "The Impact of the Highly Improbable"), by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This new volume has been a major success (#25 in Amazon's nonfiction titles, last I looked).

The key notion of the book is that nonlinear processes describe key events in society (also a key idea in The Predictors). Forecasters are deceived by their need to place narratives on phenomena that may not fit well, and statisticians and economists are deceived in their efforts at risk management by using faulty assumptions of normality. The events that disrupt things in a nonlinear way Taleb calls "the black swans" (let's not go into why--suffice to say it yields a catchy title).

Taleb hits particularly hard on those whose job is to control risk but never consider the possibility of new events, ones that have never occurred and thus not easily considered empirically. Chaos theory also comes out here.

Taleb is a man who has given up reading newspapers and magazines and watching the news; he claims the time it freed up has allowed him to read many more books. He is certainly well-read. His style is gruff and off-putting; rather gratuitously, he throws an insult in the first 20 pages at anyone who stands for a woman's right to choose (regarding abortion) and dares to call oneself a humanist. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, and everywhere he looks he sees mostly fools, so he's irritated all the time.

I agree with many of Taleb's arguments and find it to be original and thought-inspiring. So why did I want to disagree with him constantly? It was that style.

I have done many projects to look at future behavior based on past behavior, carefully constructed as those with the Predictors. I would agree that the conditions of normality are usually absent and that that fact is often ignored. The proof of the model is simply how well it predicts, not the theoretical basis, though, in the end, we would always only include factors for which we could conceive some sort of a priori justification (a blind spot--though we tested the others, too). Taleb would hate that narrative externalizing.

The real issue comes from the only type of business Taleb finds interesting--complex and highly-leveraged derivatives. With these, there is no room for an occasional off day. Taleb advocates a highly conservative strategy (e.g., T-bills) while leaving oneself open for the big score. My strategy was always to select a small number of high-likelihood gambles, each providing a reasonable return and avoiding excessive exposure in each.

I have to commend his ending for the main text: "Thank you for reading my book." Dignified, courteous.