What I Learned on Election Day

I'll let this post be a good test for the comment system. I learned three things on election day.

1) NY-23 was fascinating. Bill Owens is a Blue Dog Dem who opposed the public option on health care. At the end of the day, that was enough to beat a surging conservative with national financial support from Republicans in a bleeding red district of the northeast. That should have Albany Republicans, if not national Republicans and Democrats... very, very concerned.

The lesson of NY-23 for Republicans is that "conservative" works as a fiscal platform in a campaign, but the Republican brand is still toxic. The lesson of NY-23 for Democrats is that Blue Dogs are why you currently have power and can still win elections in traditional Republican strongholds, but your biggest election win in 2009 was because the candidate rejected the public option in health care.

2) Creigh Deeds ran a terrible campaign and looked politically inept. That will make his Senate seat hard to keep next time around. He has to stand out to stay in the Senate, which makes him a possible wild card heading into the future. More than anyone else in any of the major elections, Creigh Deeds needs to rebrand himself an image distant from the one created during the campaign.

The lesson of Virginia for Republicans is that a good candidate who runs a good campaign can win in a red state. The lesson of Virginia for Democrats is that a good candidate who runs a good campaign can win in a red state.

3) $30 million dollars wasn't enough to keep a Wall Street guy like Jon Corzine in political power during a world wide financial crisis. New Jersey lost as much as anyone in the financial crisis, and Jon Corzine became the face of a brand that represents everything toxic in American politics today.

The lesson for Republicans in New Jersey is that an unpopular incumbent is vulnerable. The lesson for Democrats in New Jersey is that an unpopular incumbent makes for a big target for 2010.

A few Senate Defense Appropriations Committee Highlights

Keep in mind the full committee still needs to meet and vote, but this sets up an interesting bit of negotiations with the house. The Senate Appropriations Committee highlights:

• Cut 1 LCS but added a 2nd DDG-51
• Killed KEI, but shifted money in BMD towards AEGIS and THAAD
• Pretty much killed the F-22, the $560m maintenance is the same as the House, leaving nothing to negotiate
• Killed the VH-71, but kept the C-17
• Buys 9 additional FA-18E/F models
• Cuts alternative JSF Engine
• Kills USAF combat search-and-rescue helicopter

And as you may have expected, offers no money to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Hopefully a good news article with all the details will pop up. Sets the stage for an interesting meeting with the House.

One thing I find interesting, when it came to Navy shipbuilding, neither the House nor the Senate appropriations went with the Presidents plan. The House added a LCS, the Senate added a DDG-51. A little here, a little there...

I do wonder if the final bill looks a lot like the Presidents plan in the end. It usually does.

Foreign Policy - 2 Lists

Foreign Policy has two lists worth looking at. The first is the 10 most dangerous countries, which are explained in detail here but I list numerically below. "Most dangerous" is defined as actors who can cause the greatest disruption through their actions to the most people over the next decade or so.

10. Venezuela
9. Iraq and Saudi Arabia (Tie)
8. The European Union
7. Nigeria and Congo (Tie)
6. Israel and Palestine (Tie)
5. Iran
4. Russia
3. Pakistan
2. China
1. The United States

My first comment on this list is that the idea of a "tie" in a top 10 list is stupid. David Rothkopf is a coward for suggesting Israel and Palestine are somehow equally dangerous. The truth is, Israel is much more dangerous and the guy lacks the gonads to say it because it is politically incorrect to suggest criticism of Israel.

The same is true of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is clearly more dangerous based on the criteria as explained, because they have military power that can be used in a war where Iraq's military power is concentrated on protecting the people of their own country from an insurgency. How David Rothkopf misses the distinction and claims a tie is very questionable.

Finally, the absence of North Korea on the list is a remarkable oversight. More people could die on the first day hostilities in just Seoul between North Korea and South Korea began than has died to war in the entire 21st century to date. The population of Seoul is well over 10 million people, if 10% died to massive shelling and bombing that would be over 1 million people, more than all the civilians, soldiers, and bad guys killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined since 2001, by a factor of around 9!

For the record, the US as number one on this list is exactly right, because when we do something we tend to do it with the force of a sledgehammer. I think the day the US is no longer #1 on this list will be a bad day, not a good day. I'd much rather be known as a the most dangerous than known as the least dangerous. Bully's tend to pick on the weak. It is generally not courage, but a bit of crazy, in the people who choose to pick on the strong.

The second list at Foreign Policy worth checking out is The World's Biggest Military Boondoggles by Brian Fung. It is an interesting list I guess, but I am not sure I agree with the list. He lists, and I don't believe in any particular order the Type 45, the Bulava ballistic missile, the Chinese Type 085 and Type 089 aircraft carrier projects, the French Porte-Avions 2 aircraft carrier project, and the A-400 heavy transport.

Considering Brian Fung has about zero hard information regarding Chinese aircraft carrier projects, much less how much has been or will be spent on them, his inclusion of that item on the list is silly. There is some realy stupidity in this analysis.

But can China deliver? Critics say the country has neither the technology nor the skills nor the time to achieve its targets. It could conceivably field a small carrier fairly soon -- a military hardware expo on July 4 revealed mock-ups closely resembling a Soviet Kuznetsov-class vessel. That type of carrier, however, doesn’t feature the steam catapults necessary to launch heavier, more sophisticated planes off the deck. China would have to design such a system from scratch or modify its existing maglev technology to fit. The albatross potential here is considerable.

I think Brian Fung just revealed he doesn't know much with that comment. We are banking on the albatross being China's inability to get 'steam catapults' to work, and we make this assessment on models at a hardware expo? The aircraft carrier boondoggle he should have mentioned is the Admiral Gorshkov project Russia is working on for India, the biggest boondoggle taking place in the military export market today.

While the A-400 and Bulava are clearly Boondoggles, the question I have is whether the Porte-Avions 2 is more of a boondoggle than the Ford-class aircraft carrier to date, or whether the Type 45 is even in the same league of boondoggle as the DDG-1000 right now. I still wonder if at the end of the day, the Joint Strike Fighter becomes the biggest boondoggle in military history, and it didn't even make Brian Fung's list.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

In general, I tend to avoid these kinds of issues, but there appears to be a trend worth observing. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is popping up more and more recently, but what is interesting is that I am not seeing the politicians pushing the conversation so much as I see the Generals asking about it.

Commandant Gen. James Conway is polling his generals on the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In a March 13 "P4" — personal-for message — to all 82 of his general officers, Conway asks four questions, including this one: "How strongly should we, as an institution, challenge the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy?" The other questions covered in the e-mail, which came under the subject line, "2009 UPDATE FOR THE COMMANDANT," covered priorities at a time of "dwindling budgets," seabasing and a general question about "any topic that you think is important and should influence the course and speed of the Corps."

Not sure if you noticed, but last month MG Mike Oates of the 10th Mtn Division asked a similar question on that units blog.

Would you support Congress changing the current law to permit gay Soldiers to serve openly in the Army? What are the benefits/challenges if this occurs and how would you recommend we implement the change in a professional manner if required?

My read is that the Generals are preparing for questions they expect to be asked about in testimony, and are doing what any good leader would do, taking a sample of their peoples opinions.

My guess is the Obama administration is positioning this issue for the Secretary of Defense after Gates. The first issue that must be addressed before any changes take place is that "Don't ask, Don't tell" is law, meaning even if the Obama administration wanted to change the policy, first they have to go to Congress.

Farewell Secretary Winter

Today is the last day the Honorable Donald C. Winter. Donald C. Winter will be the 74th Secretary of the Navy. No replacement has been named. The Secretary of the Navy is one of the oldest and most prestigious positions in United States government. The position was a member of the Presidents Cabinet from 1798 until 1947, when the Navy was put under the Department of Defense and the Secretary of Defense position was created.

No replacement has been named. The only eligible candidate I am aware of is Ray Mabus, but if the position was vacant until October, Juan Garcia is also a name float often. As for who I hope they pick, well lets just say instead of drinking the usual 'SECNAV needs to be an industry guy' Kool-aid, I prefer Guinness!

As for Secretary Winter, fair winds and calm seas sir.

Shockingly Dumb

Are you kidding me? How can anyone defend this? This would be a 16% increase in the national debt... in a single year. Make sure you take a hard look at that graph, that bar on the right isn't a border, it is part of the graph.

President Obama’s new budget blueprint estimates a stunning deficit of $1.75 trillion for the current fiscal year, which began five months ago, then lays out a wrenching change of course as he seeks to fund his own priorities while stanching the flow of red ink.

Hard choices? The allowance for public dishonesty by these folks is scary. This isn't fiscal discipline, this is blatant disregard of the entire concept of a budget. How in the world can people claim to be fixing an economic problem when these folks appear to have no apparent understanding regarding the value of money?

This would represent the biggest existential threat to my future that I have faced in my lifetime, and a self imposed existential threat to our country, make no mistake about that. Who could possibly come to the conclusion this is responsible governance?

Feng was right.

And the happy face stickers and ferrydust needed to make the all positive assumptions in this document is astounding. The disregard for responsibility and fiscal discipline is shocking.

With this kind of blatant disregard for the value of money, it will raise the question what the value of US money actually is. Ultimately, the answer is nothing, and inflation will sink the future.

Nice Choice Gov

As an upstate New Yorker, let me voice my rarely vocal political opinion that Governor Patterson has made the right choice with Kirsten Gillibrand. From Albany Times Union:

Here’s what we know for sure: Gov. David Paterson will finally reveal his choice to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate at noon today.

While there’s nothing official about who will be standing next to him at the Capitol, strong signs are pointing in the direction of U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-Greenport.

While Gillibrand’s spokeswoman denied any contact between Gillibrand and Paterson throughout the day Thursday, a highly placed Democratic source said that members of New York’s Congressional delegation were briefed Thursday afternoon that Gillibrand will be named.

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would have been a good choice, but this is a great choice in my opinion. The media is running around asking why. Here is why. Next year this Senate seat will go to election, and by putting her in this position, she will never lose it, ever. Cuomo carried only 58% of the state vote in a deep blue state, Gillibrand carried a red district with 58%. She is smarter than her public charm presents, and she is not only well liked, but she relates well with people in a way that doesn't smell politik. She is serious about family, serious about jobs, and has always demonstrated to her constituency that she is serious about her job of representing them. It does annoy my very progressive friends that she gets a 100% NRA rating, which by the way, doesn't bother me at all. I've met her several occasions, and have nothing but good things to say about her.

Expect outrage from the city folk. I noticed Wayne Barrett is going nuts, but the good professor needs to put his rolling papers away. Nobody who spends any serious time in Albany sees it odd when a family has close ties to one party and switches to another, indeed I smell your elitist attitude when the thesis suggests "political family" roots aren't sufficient enough to represent New Yorkers in government. When the government family tree begins looking like a stick, for example Bush 41 and Bush 43, perhaps it is time to bring in new genes. It is also odd to suggest someone with very thin ties to Joe Bruno is out of the ordinary. Get a clue man, everyone in state politics on both sides of politics has thin ties to Joe Bruno, he was the most powerful politician in this state for decades.

Kirsten Gillibrand has been on the HASC for the last two years, and represented herself very well there. Senator Clinton has been on the Senate Armed Services Committee over the last several years, in theory Kirsten should be able to walk into that position and hold her own, assuming she gets that assignment.

I know, this isn't a political blog blah blah, and while this might be something you see on TV news, this decision is a lot closer to home for me.

Very Interesting Russian "Soft Power" Strategic View

Matt Armstrong has found a gem of an article. I do not jest when I suggest in the hands of someone clever this article could fuel talk radio shows on either side of the political isle for a month. This is a really interesting Russian analysis of how to attack the United States with soft power.

I will ask up front that you please not be the asshole in the comments who suggests this Russian analysis is targeting just liberals or conservatives, because if you read it in full you will learn it is very thorough in exploiting the political tendencies of both sides of the political spectrum.

This is a short summary of the post by Paul Goble on Window of Eurasia regarding the article.

Having discovered that economic power does not immediately translate into political influence and may in fact alienate those it is supposed to attract, the Russian government needs to identify new ways to influence the West but finding that its options are not nearly as good as many in Moscow had thought, according to a Russian analyst.

And the most effective way to do that, Andrey Pronin writes in an essay posted today on a Moscow State University portal that has often served as a source of foreign policy ideas for the Russian government, is for Russia to deploy what he calls its "soft force" against American "soft power".

"In the 1940s and 1950s," the Moscow analyst continues, "a significant part of the most respectable Western intelligentsia held leftist views and openly sympathized with the USSR, and English aristocrats worked for Soviet intelligence services on the basis of their convictions in this regard."

Today, he says, Russia needs to find "allies interested in itself within America" and to "form a pro-Russian lobby, a circle of influential people who respect and support Russia and who will exert an ever greater pressure on the political establishment of the United States" on behalf of Moscow. ...

Moscow needs allies, and the two most obvious ones are India and China, neither of whom Pronin suggests is comfortable with American-style globalization. If such a "union of the three giants" is formed, he concludes, Russia will occupy the leading role of a scientific and innovative center and the developer of humanitarian technologies and standards."

There are some money quotes in Andrey Pronin's paper. This paragraph is just a sample.

The situation in American society favors the implementation of these plans. In many ways the United States today is reminiscent of the Soviet Union period of stagnation under Brezhnev. Militarism, foreign adventures, attacks on freedom of speech and human rights, censorship, the presence of the official ideology are evident. Multinational and multiracial American society does not have a common history and defines itself in terms of ideology, which is a more fragile foundation of national unity, rather than a common culture and history that binds cultures. If you choose to continue the comparison, the U.S., as in the Soviet Union, should be a peaceful ideological and cultural revolution. The challenge for Russia is to give impetus and direction to the process. Russia should contribute to the U.S. situation in a way similar to how the US promoted the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union, namely by injecting quarrel into the most creative layer of Soviet intellectuals with Brezhnev nomenclature. Russia needs to formulate such a cultural project that, first, develops influence over American intellectuals, and secondly, leverages against the American political system that is out of balance, and split the American artistic and intellectual elite in power.

In other words:

• Exploit the worlds global perception of America against America
  
• Exploit sympathy within American intellectual and artistic communities
• Exploit diversity as an unbinding individualism rather than binding common interest
  
• Exploit the ideological partisan political divide to create a disenfranchised American political culture

The paper goes on to form a high level strategy of building an environment in Russia favorable to American intellectuals by exploiting the ideological divides in the American education system. One such example cited is the education divisions found between human science and religion, but another divide is how creativity is becoming more limited in US education due to how education leaders are exercising ideological control along partisan political divisions in creative debate. The aim appears to be to court the elites who dominate education to help shape the information studied by younger generations while dividing the elites and religious Americans. Russia sees religion as a source of weakness in America, and is looking for allies among Americans who believe this as to promote further divisions between religious Americans and non-religious American elites and artists.

The paper suggests building a unified "soft force" strategy with India and China so together the three nations can beat back what is labeled a failed western neo-liberal globalization economic model, so a new model can be reinvented in a form more favorable to Russia.

I believe the paper qualifies as a must read, and I admit doing it an injustice by not translating the whole thing. There is already a bit of intellectual commentary on the paper among Russian bloggers and elites, much of which is interesting as well. Hopefully, someone will translate the whole thing into English, because it deserves study and further intellectual discussion.

My thoughts as the Inauguration Day approaches

As I sit here on Martin Luther King Day and watching all of the celebrations, I can't help but think about the future of this country with everything that is happening in the past 2 days. As previously mentioned, I am a fan of Barack Obama. I think he really is a natural born leader and also a very intelligent person willing to work with others. Over the past few weeks, we've seen Obama appointing some really top notch (although Clinton Era) people to power. The thought is obviously if we can put the smartest people in charge, we will have good results. Certainly, most people are looking forward to the new administration after 8 years of Bush. The first 4 years were certainly the worst governance in my lifetime. I think Bush actually got better in his second term, but the first 4 years were so bad that the harmful effect didn't really unveil themselves to the full extent until the second 4 years. And in terms of economics, they didn't show up until near the end of the second term.

Unfortunately, as much as I like Obama, I see a lot of bleak things coming up in the next few years. I think that with a less confrontational approach in foreign policy, Obama will bring a lot of good will for America. At the same time, the hope that Obama brings to minorities and young people in this country will in many ways improve our society. However, I also think that we are heading for a long period of tough economic times. I wish nothing but the best for Obama and I don't think McCain and most other presidential candidates would do much better, so this is not a slight against our incoming president.

Looking at some of the proposals being talked about by the congress, it's clear that democrat party would like to push through a huge stimulus package that would dramatically increase the size of the government. At the same time, we have already seen the Fed effectively cutting the benchmark rate to 0% and guaranteeing the debt of every bank that asked for it. It seems like the entire economic team was taken over by Goldman Sachs this past year. And with the exception of Paul Volcker, the new economic team looks like same school of money-printing, big stimulus/big budget economists. So, what is likely to happen is a lot more bail outs in the next year of the banks and the major industries. It's quite interesting that GMAC is getting rescued just as they are introducing the no-money down offer again to increase sales. The reason they are going under is due to this irresponsible lending practice to people who simply shouldn't be buying cars. Looking at what Japan did in the 90s to rescue their economy, we are basically going down the same path. Unfortunately, Japan was in a better economic situation than we are now, because they were the major manufacturing center, whereas our entire economy is based on service and consumption. Japanese economy didn't get better until the massive growth of the Chinese economy really started to affect the entire PacRIM. I see that in the best case scenario, we will be in along period of economic downturn like the 90s Japan until when the emerging market recovers to the point that they can drive world economic growth. So, why do I think this is going to happen?

Well, I think the theory behind lowering interest rate is to increase lending and liquidity so that people will buy more and business will be able to expand. In our case, we are at the point that a lot of ordinary people are in so much debt that they shouldn't be allowed to borrow more money to buy things. Businesses should not be expanding when the economy is already doing so badly. Who is going to buy newer/more expensive products when they are already broke. The economy needs to retract a little bit, so that people will be spending only what they make (not what they borrow) and the businesses that are not competitive should be allowed to collapse. So, lowering interest rate should help the economy when people have good jobs (there can afford to buy things) and businesses can expand to make more money from consumers. However, when everyone is loosing jobs and in debt, it's absolutely insane to keeping on pumping money into the system. What's really happening is that our currency will depreciate as more money becomes available. And I think a lot of us are already starting to feel inflation. Currently, things do appear cheaper in Gap, H&M and Old Navy because they have a lot of excessive inventory they need to sell. Once they realize people can't afford to buy clothing anymore, they will order less from manufacturers in third world and things will get more expensive again. And in the long run, this kind of money-printing policy will simply cause so much inflation that our savings will generally be wiped out. By bailing everyone out, the government can ensure that the nominal value of our saving will not lower, but the purchasing power of our saving will dwindle to nothing. And unfortunately, banks knowing that they will be bailed out will continuously act irresponsibly (like BofA buying Merrill) and totally ruin our economy. Once China and Middle East figures out that there is no way we can ever pay them back, they will cut their losses and then where are we going to get our money from?

As Obama is coming to power, I wish somehow that he will realize that the best thing is to let the country have a couple of years of really bad recession. Let people start saving up again, balance the budget, let the unprofitable businesses collapse and things will turn around only after that. We are only at the beginning stage of a big recession. We are seeing banks that survived all the major recessions falling apart at the current time. If we let the market work and not interfere with bigger gov't, we might still turn around the economy before the end of the term. Nobody ever wants to be the guy in power when a recession happens, so gov't always tries to interfere to prevent a recession from happening. We have reached the point that we can't postpone a major recession anymore. The population has faith in you, Mr. Obama, not the Fed Chairman, not treasury secretary, and especially not the wall street people that run our financial system ripping out average joes. Resist what these people are telling you. They didn't see that this was coming. If they didn't know back earlier last year that we will end up where we are now; if they didn't know the problem was the entire mortgage market (not just the subprime market), how would they know what the cure is? I think you are a great leader elected to lead the country at one of the most difficult situations. There are not easy way out of this, but following the advise to print more money and have bigger government is not the way to go.

My thoughts on the Obama victory

I will try to keep this a rare thing. I normally don't post my political views on blogs, but I thought this is simply too big to ignore. Those who know me personally know that I've been an Obama supporter for a long time. In fact, I've been a supporter since 2006 when he announced his candidacy. Personally speaking, I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but I've always supported him. I believe that the leader of America should be a truly unique person with strong leadership qualities. The policies are formulated by the advisers and other members of the party. I will never find a candidate whose policies I agree 100% with. However, true leaders have something different. They have the ability to inspire the nation to do greater things. They have the ability to get the young people to believe in themselves and believe in the nation. They have the ability to give vision to the people, so that they can have hope and optimism. It's like in sports. The best leaders may not happen to be the best player/athlete, but their leadership inspires team mates to be better than they could ever be alone. That's what I always saw in Obama. He inspires a lot of people (including myself) to work hard for the greater good of the world. He gives me hope that this present quagmire will be over. Somtimes, having confidence in life is the only placibo we need to achieve greater things. Maybe all this inspiration and enthusiasm will not succeed (and it is hard to with the current economic situation), but he can't be any worse than George Bush. We will have at least a president that is respected by the rest of the world, an intelligent man at the helm and change the way the world thinks about America. Just by the virtual of having a black man elected, it tells the world that America is not just ruled by a bunch of old white man. But that it really is a land where anyone can do anything. That alone would change and has changed the way that the rest of the world thinks about America. This really is something no other candidate can do.

And when he was making his acceptance speech, I felt like crying. When I first came to North America and learning about the culture here, my first hero was Martin Luther King. I remember that goosebumps I had when I first heard the "I have a dream" speech. So, when Obama went back on the civil rights movement back in the days, it was almost too much for me to bear. It was amazing for not only the fulfillment of an old dream, but the start of a new one. Even though Obama is black and I am Chinese, I've always felt that I could relate to him. I related to him as someone who was born into a situation without much expectations, but managed to do well in life with the support of a loving family. When he spelt out a dream, he was not only doing it for black people, mixed-racial people or single parent people, but also for those who on the surface do not seem to share a life story with him. I'm a Canadian living in America, so I'm caught in the economic downfall like everyone else is. I wish that the change he speaks of will become beneficial to people in America and the rest of the world.

As for his policies, I personally don't support a lot of them. I'm very fiscally conservative and also believe that offshore drilling should be allowed and nuclear power should be the largest part of a clean air initiative. I like Ron Paul the most. I personally think that his economic policies would've been the most positive for America, but they are too radical for the main stream media and the public. Basically, I like the old school conservatism that believed in small government, pragmatic foreign policy and low taxes (which no one can label the present day Republicans). So despite having such a leaning, I never looked away from Barack's character, leadership and intelligence. These are qualities that I did not see to the same degree in any other candidates.

An American Dream Is Realized

Congratulations to Barack Obama, the next President of the United States.

I get the racial factor, embrace it, but understand it played a smaller part then it will be given credit. The majority of voters for McCain didn't support him because of race, and neither did the majority of those who voted for Obama. This election was about two men, both impressive, and one who defeated the other in the latest chapter of our nation where we transition government peacefully through the democratic process.

It is about an idea. Not specific, but both generational and generic. A brilliant campaign strategy with an associated brilliant communication strategy. It is about likability, charisma, charm, and the ability to make perception a reality. Barack Obama became the personification of the idea of change.

While "change" is undefined, it is best represented in the personification of Barack Obama himself and all the challenges he has overcome, breaking stereotypes and proving that the aptitude of every American is self determined. He found a way into the best schools, and rose to the top in the highly competitive Chicago political machine. I know a little about political machines, and this one defeated what many have long considered the best when he defeated Hillary Clinton.

Through his achievements and personified tonight by result, Barack Obama continues to represent the American dream, and that rise and achievement of a minority from the lower income class is impossible in every other major power in the world. Once again through action, not symbolism, the rest of the world looks at the United States and sees how we self correct, how we adapt, how our creativity towards a better world leads through actions, not symbols or hollow rhetoric.

As I look to the future, I also look to the past in search of understanding who this man will be as President. In WWII, Japan would describe events following the defeat at Midway and later Guadalcanal without using the word retreat, instead using words with the literal translation "shifting" or "changing course." As I have observed Barack Obama this election, I've admired his ability to do exactly that.

Barack Obama built strength in the Democratic Party base specifically by adopting the primary issues of that constituency as his own, best exampled by his opposition to the Iraq War and every other Bush policy. That voting record is about the only thing anyone has to judge what Obama believes in governance, but I do not believe it is relevant. After defeating Hillary Clinton in the primary, Barack Obama "shifted", or "changed course" by almost immediately dropping his opposition to the Patriot Act and adjusting his policies on the Iraq war. We have seen it on other issues as well, NAFTA is another example.

In each case, Barack Obama represents a political enigma because he can change course with a perception of thoughtfulness that few in the nations political class can. I fully expect another major shift as Barack Obama moves from being the Democratic Party nominee to the President-elect of the United States. While some say he will be the most radical President in American history, I see a moderate who will change course in order to adopt and build a larger constituency.

That is his historical pattern, and if done right he will be the change candidate he has been telling America he is. If done right, as the most interesting and compelling politician in my lifetime, a brilliant communicator unique in having a complimentary communication team and strategy, the extent to which the Republican Party is broken won't be fully realized until Barack Obama begins his second term in 2012.

Have a Good Holiday Weekend

Posting will be sporadic over the holiday. While we have lots to talk about, the holiday weekend has arrived and spending the weekend with my kids is high on the agenda, but as anyone with kids knows, that isn't always the way they want things to go.

For many Americans who have been observing the politics, feel free to comment in this thread, but don't get banned attacking others and be aware that the likelihood of me being influenced by someones blog comment in this thread is ridiculous. Disagreements is what politics is all about. If you read this blog for politics, you're a damn fool.

I thought last night was incredible TV with Obama, and it was every bit the historical moment the media made it out to be. I was very pleased my 13 year old sat and watched it with me, she has heard my stories growing up in Arkansas, and she understood the moment. Obama really is the most dynamic political speaker in my life time, and is better than Bill Clinton ever was in communicating with others. Was I sold? Nope. Everyone has different issues that matter to them, and mine are economic and foreign policy. As a business owner I had chills thinking where his economic policy is going, as it became very clear that Obama's brand of economic policy is very much a socialist policy that goes after business to fork over money to Washington so that political leaders can redistribute it to the country. Faith in government to manage money is hardly a sign of wisdom, as best highlighted by the current administration. It is time to cut spending.

Obama's single largest problem is that he believes he can do what Republicans and Democrats have been trying to do for decades, tweak the income tax code and find a magic bullet. Won't happen, the tax code under the Bush administration is actually valued the right way, the problem isn't the policy, its the reality the tax code is very broken and we need a consumption (fair) tax. Taxing business instead of individuals is being sold as wise economic policy. That is laughable stupidity in this market, the sure sign business is not a priority in the economic system. The suggestion America will innovate under higher taxes of corporations is misguided political strategy, the reason we see so many alternative energy start-ups today is precisely because of the way the Bush administration has managed taxation of business. Look, Bush economics suck too, but its as good as it can get until we throw out the tax code, and that will become painfully obvious under Obama.

My wife and I had all but decided to vote for Hillary until that went off the tracks. I have never been a big fan of John McCain and never saw me voting for him, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure that I haven't been waiting my whole life to vote for him. He really is the against the grain politician that I've always claimed to be looking for, the maverick who I think is what we need, and he represents the American story I can believe in. Admittedly I'm more concerned with McCain's foreign policy direction than Obama's, but I vote with my wallet and see John McCain's economic vision as better than Obama's, although I can see why people who are not business owners completely fail to understand that. When they lose their job, they'll have more time to study the reasons.

The association between John McCain and George Bush might work on simple minds, but the attack underestimates the memory of the independent voter, so I ultimately think that line of thought will fail as a tactic. Obama is going to need to sell himself more and worry about McCain less if he wants to win, because McCain will sell himself just fine as the recent polling data indicates.

Sarah Palin is a brilliant choice, but for awhile people will not understand why. The American media is so shallow, they will highlight her as a woman, her position on abortion, her lifetime membership in the NRA, talk about her lack of experience (even if she is the only person on either ticket with executive experience), and will talk about womens issues and think they are covering the bases. To think the decision is about politics leads to her being underestimated, and the last time I saw someone underestimated in politics because of what they are, rather than who they are, that politician (Barak Obama) crushed his opponent. Underestimating Sarah Palin would be extraordinary shortsighted, she is a much more impressive pick than Joe Biden who was all but forced on Obama by his critics. People know so little about Sarah Palin this is a brilliant way to exceed all expectations, and expectations matter in politics.

I see my partisan friends worried about how the Republican Party or Democratic Party is split, and I can't help but smile. The only thing I've taken out of the election season to date is that business as usual is in the process of being rejected. We have two very interesting tickets, but they both tell the same story. The United States of America is the greatest country in the world, and the lives of all four candidates combine to represent and reaffirm that reality.

Have a great holiday weekend

Political Grandstanding on the Military Coattails

We are observing a line of thought being forwarded in many places, and what makes it interesting is that nobody seems to notice or care to note it due to partisanship. We are not political observers, we aren't very good at being partisan nor do we care enough about politics to promote some individual ideological position that doesn't quite fit neatly with either side of politics in America today anyway. We do however attempt to stay informed and follow the trends, and when we see something that isn't quite right we intend to speak up during this campaign season. This is one of those times.

The latest set of talking points started with the DoD press conference by Admiral Mullen on July 2nd. These comments, which aren't new for him nor the SECDEF, have become the political news.

First on Afghanistan:

Let me also say just a word about Afghanistan. I am and have been for some time now deeply troubled by the increasing violence there. The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate. The United States and NATO leadership -- and I had the chance to meet with my NATO counterparts last week in Brussels -- are very focused on the challenges there, particularly in the east and the south.

We are exploring a number of options and opportunities to get a better understanding of the scope of the threat and the best means with which to counter it. I've made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so. It's a very complex problem, and it's tied to the drug trade, a faltering economy and, as I've said many times, the porous border region with Pakistan.

Then on Iran:

I -- we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time, and I think if I were just to take the high stakes that were -- that we -- I just talked about a minute ago, part of the results of that engagement or lack of engagement, I think, is there.

What is interesting is that the press jumped on these comments and threw them into politics. Noah Shachtman used the Afghanistan comments to suggest Admiral Mullen sounds like Obama, while NBC news jumped on the Iran comments to suggest Admiral Mullen sounds like Obama. They are both wrong.

As Thomas Barnett pointed out, Admiral Mullen isn't following Obama, rather Admiral Mullen is following Admiral Fallon's footsteps here. To a greater degree, the talking points that have become the position of Obama and already represents the position of McCain, are not being driven by political ideologies, rather the policy talking points of the current military leadership. From our perspective, it looks like the Secretary of Defense is now driving the campaign conversation talking points on both wars and the fragile peace regarding Iran.

There are two ways to look at this, either the political leadership running for president is so absent strategic thinking that they must rely on the current military leadership to establish a credible strategic position for them, or the political leadership believes the current military leadership is doing such a great job they are intentionally following their direction. The first implies two disappointing candidates, while the the second would highlight a military with a bit too much control regarding the direction of the national political debate. One thing is plainly obvious though, both Barack Obama and John McCain have both conceded the position of the nations wars to the military, essentially adopting the positions of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, which by extension were the positions of Admiral Fallon.

The position of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, despite being top figures in the Bush Administration, are not publicly considered to be holding the same political line that the Bush Administration is. This has given both candidates the ability to accumulate plenty of credibility on the issues, essentially citing the same things military leaders are saying, which allows them to politically be in an alternative position of the administration while also shielding them from political heat from their opponents. Indeed Barack Obama is taking more heat from his supporters with his new position than he is by Republicans, and John McCain's message has been completely replaced by the talking points of the military. It makes sense though, the military is more popular among Americans than either candidate, and the military leadership sounds smarter than both candidates. McCain is still confusing religious sects in Iraq, and no one in recent memory can offer so little insight on strategy or policy with so many words like Obama.

What does this tell us? Everyone can decide on their own, but we keep thinking it can't be an accident that Bush has made the most politically safe position on the war for both the Democrat and Republican nominee the position of current military leadership. Has Bush united the country behind the military leadership position on both wars and virtually all foreign policy issues right before our eyes, at his own expense but also to the credit of his policy positions? Ahh the nuance of politics during a campaign season.

One thing is plainly clear though, Obama and McCain both have no voice in either military affairs or foreign policy right now, because all they both do is repeat what Gates and Mullen are saying.

It's also too bad Admiral Fallon isn't running for President.

New Process For Detainees Begins Journey Towards Unknown Destination

I am not an attorney, and will never pretend to be. I did go to Law School though, because my wife did while we were married. If you were married when you or your spouse attended law school, you understand what that means. I spent this evening at a party with a crowd of attorneys, I was one of 4 people I met among a sea of suits who was not an attorney, and as you can imagine today's Supreme Court ruling was the topic at the bar... which is where you are guaranteed to find me at these events.

Unless you avoid news, which I imagine most people who read this blog do not, you have probably heard about the Supreme Court decision today regarding the right to Habeas Corpus for individuals detained at Guantánamo Bay. This is the key point on the ruling.

The court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that, at the administration’s behest, stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the detainees seeking to challenge their designation as enemy combatants.

Congress and the administration had passed a shortened alternative to a habeas procedure for the prisoners in the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that procedure “falls short of being a constitutionally adequate substitute” because it failed to offer “the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus.”

There are a bunch of strong opinions regarding this case, and almost all of those opinions are based on a bias against something, whether political or process. Virtually all of the analysis I have read is partisan, provided from the rather irrelevant perspective to most Americans of what it means for George Bush, John McCain, or Barak Obama. This approach to reporting is pretty silly, who really gives a shit what it means for the careers of a politician, the question is what does it mean for the country. Taking any other perspective highlights a lack of objectivity on this important discussion. This isn't about politics, this is about process.

At the end of the day this ruling is a test of separation of powers. The 2005 Detainee Treatment Act was a law passed by Congress, and signed by the President. The Supreme Court is ruling one small part of this act is unconstitutional, specifically that those detained have the right to know why they are detained and defend themselves of those reasons in a federal court. The right side of politics is claiming this ruling gives too much protection to enemy combatants, while the left is claiming this ruling is, well... it is hard to tell because it is all celebrated as a political victory. I'm not very partisan, and think both sides are overstating the victory and defeat here. This is a victory for process, and the political effects can be left to the pundits.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court has done what needed to be done, start the process for processing detained individuals. Guantánamo Bay has been an unattainable stalemate that has done nothing but delay the necessity to process prisoners effectively and with credibility in the Long War. The ruling isn't a reflection of a major political shift in the country as both political parties claim, rather a rejection of the idea that indefinite detention without process is an acceptable solution. It makes no sense in my world why indefinitely doing nothing was good for America, but that was the political spin of the Administration on this issue. Only in Washington...

The court is using the only means by which it has available to it for processing, using the Federal Court system as the appropriate medium.

The political effect sets up volatile conditions for blow back, the art of unintended consequences, and the blow back politically can go either way and carry with it significant political consequences. The decision shifts the credibility from the politicians (who simply outsourced the problem to the military) to the courts for managing prisoners of war, and spotlights the attention to the credibility of judges for dealing with matters of war. Guantánamo Bay reportedly houses some fairly significant evil folks in their midst. The myth is Americans demand vengeance, but the reality is Americans expect justice, and won't be very tolerable of legal tricks that allow violent individuals to walk free. Handled wisely by the courtss, this can be a good thing for America.

Handled unwisely by the courts, this could be a devastating blow to the credibility of America and the courts, and result in a series of unintended consequences. If it is up to politicians, the courts will be who takes the fall for failure, while the politicians will take credit for success. This condition is one more reason why the effect of this ruling will be interesting to watch, because unlike the partisans, we don't see this as a victory or defeat for America, rather the beginning of a process towards an unknown conclusion.

The May Political Thought

We usually avoid politics here, but when my mother emailed me this I felt it appropriate to blog it. As I display often, I am a political moron. I don't follow it very much, I find talking points to be lacking, I really like political debates when they are substantive, but otherwise they bore me, and I've been a conservative democrat for most of my voting life without a political party the last few years. I'm really not very impressed with either progressives or conservatives right now, they act too much alike expecting absolute party loyalty at a time when the political parties on both sides have been sticking their collective foot up the ass of the people of this country. Sorry, you partisans ask too much. I have a perception I'm still working out, it is a shorter distance for me to go right to McCain than to go left to Obama, at least that is how I see it so far on the two issues that matters most to me: economic policy and foreign policy.

I have made no secret how much I dislike our current president. I'm not touching the Democratic Party until the primary season is officially over and I don't have to listen to the 24/7 spin on TV. I think it will be refreshing to hear the Democratic Party nominee speak for oneself for a change. However, when my mom emails me this story and reminds me that I may not get a chance to vote for someone who has lived a real life like this again in my lifetime, I admit I find that argument interesting.

The Navy recently released McCain's military record — most of it citations for medals during his Navy career — after a Freedom of Information Act request by The Associated Press.

McCain was awarded a Silver Star Medal for resisting "extreme mental and physical cruelties" inflicted upon him by his captors from late October to early December 1967, the early months of his captivity, according to the citation. The North Vietnamese, according to the Navy, ignored international agreements and tortured McCain "in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes."

The story goes on and on describing his record. It is impressive. I want to know more about Barak Obama, but he doesn't have a very impressive resume to judge, and he hasn't said much that has impressed me yet. There is a long election ahead for that. A resume doesn't tell the whole story, but it does tell a story.

Which is why I found this very interesting. This is John McCain's official Navy service record. It doesn't tell me who he is, but it tells me a lot about what he has done, and people don't do these things without learning some things a long the way. Some suggest his age is a factor. It is against Hillary, not Obama. Against Hillary she has the advantage, against Obama it becomes McCains experience vs Obama's youth. That is the age issue for me in a nutshell.

McCain is so clearly not George Bush, and I think the nation would be doing very well if McCain is like his father, which he may not be. Being different than Bush may not help him with Republicans, but expect his opponent to spend $100 million dollars in advertising trying to paint the Maverick into the image of the Decider. That tactic might work to influence the ignorant, but it will take substance to overcome the kind of substance McCain has listed on that service record. It is going to be an interesting election, hopefully we get good choices, instead of settling for the better of two frustrating choices.

The Piracy Problem, Politics and Possibilities

We are rapidly approaching the political discussion regarding maritime piracy, and it is going to be one worth observing closely. Piracy is not a threat to the global system, at least not yet, but it is beginning to take a toll on global economics and a potential of future disruption is now on the minds of many. While it is one thing for a tuna boat with 13 Spanish citizens to be hijacked at sea, the oil bunkering and disruption of oil in Nigeria, and now a bold attack on the 150,000 ton Japanese super tanker is a warning sign that a shared international security challenge is emerging. What we find most interesting about the problem is that not only is it global, but it is an issue where many nations find common ground.

With back to back piracy incidents, France and Spain are taking the lead on many fronts, including the process relevant to the political debate regarding the exercise of military power, but also by building support through international institutions. This Navy Times article sets up a number of interesting discussions.

The United States and France are drafting a U.N. resolution that would allow countries to chase and arrest pirates off Somalia’s coast, responding to a spate of attacks including this week’s hijacking of a Spanish tuna boat, U.N. diplomats said Monday.

France’s U.N. Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert said the resolution would authorize foreign governments to pursue pirate vessels into territorial waters, make arrests, and prosecute suspects.

Where is the problem?

According to a report from the International Maritime Bureau, piracy is on the rise, with seafarers suffering 49 attacks between January and March — up 20 percent from the period last year.

Nigeria ranked as the No. 1 trouble spot. India and the Gulf of Aden tied for second, with each reporting five incidents. Nearly two dozen piracy incidents were recorded off the coast of Somalia since January 2007, according to Andrew Mwangura of the Kenya-based Seafarers Assistance Program.

Why does it matter to you?

The tanker attack helped send crude oil prices to a new record, spiking above $117 a barrel Monday before falling back slightly...

Cyrus Mody, a senior analyst at the Maritime Bureau, warned of piracy’s effect on the shipping industry.

“Insurance gets involved, premiums rise up, the owner is not happy so he will raise his freight cost. If he does that, the cost to the end buyer increases and at the end the common man has to bare the brunt,” he said. “It’s a cycle and it keeps going on.”

Now follow where the discussion is going...

The Spanish prime minister’s office said efforts were under way to secure the sailors’ release, and that aid was being sought from NATO, the African Union, France and Britain. Spain does not have an embassy in Somalia, which has not had an effective government since 1991...

The European Union presidency on Monday called for a strong international effort to address piracy, while Spanish lawmaker Mikel Irujo Amezaga urged immediate action at the European Parliament.

“There is a lack of EU legislation on maritime security. Security is more or less regulated inside the EU but once you go outside, there’s nothing at all protecting European ships. We’re going to ask the (European) Commission again to rectify this,” Irujo Amezaga said by telephone.

As the world looks for consensus on maritime law enforcement, they have appropriately turned to the international institutions including United Nations, NATO, the African Union, and the European Union for a way forward. In observing this approach, we believe there is a good case to be made that the piracy issue serves as an excellent test case to determine the usefulness of international institutions in the 21st century to promote international security in the post Iraq environment.

Most Americans don't realize just how low on the priorities list of the US Navy piracy falls in that region. There is a lot more going on in the 5th Fleet than we hear about in the news, and our nations Navy is very busy. Imagine a world where a US Navy ship opens fire in the Strait of Hormuz on an Iranian vessel and nobody hears about it. We live in that world, and if it wasn't for a leak in the Pentagon several days later regarding an incident with Iran where no weapons were fired, we never would have heard about the USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) firing warning shots at Iranian boats that got too close. We believe this type of incident is more routine than is being reported. Remember the PC boat that fired a flare as a warning the other day? I didn't bring it up for discussion because I didn't think it was news, and in the context of all the stuff we don't hear about through the media, I still don't think it was news.

In observing what naval news does come out of the 5th Fleet region, we're convinced we are only hearing about 10% of what is going on region wide. While it is easy to imagine based on our weekly Order of Battles that NATO ships are patrolling the shores looking for pirates and protecting the maritime domain, that is not reality. In that region of earth and sea we do not see the smuggling, human trafficking, and other criminal activity that naval forces are dealing with. In a place of warlord, tribe, and king where every family is locked, loaded and being resupplied by the local arms dealer, military forces at sea have their hands full with the day to day.

Based on our last Order of Battle, the United States Navy has only 10 surface combatants in the entire 5th Fleet region; 2 cruisers, 7 destroyers, and a frigate. Among many other unnamed roles, those ten surface combatants are expected to provide protection for the Iraqi maritime domain, missile defense for the Middle East, escort for military cargo coming in and out of the region in support of two wars, escort to other naval forces including the regional aircraft carrier, the protection of maritime trade, exercise and operate with foreign naval forces, support maritime security operations, logistically supply naval forces of both the United States and allies, protect key ports and maritime facilities in the region, and carry out mission profiles against global terror organizations in the region that operate and train in ungoverned lands.

The Red Sea has an estimated area of 174,000 square miles. The Persian Gulf has an estimated area of 93,000 square miles. The Arabian Sea has an estimated area of 1,491,000 square miles. The 5th Fleet website claims the total area of responsibility is 7.5 million square miles. We hear how hard it is for our ground forces to cover all of Iraq with a surge force of 160,000 troops, but Iraq only has an area of 167,400 square miles, 10x smaller than those three bodies of water, and 44x smaller than the 5th Fleet area of responsibility the US Navy patrols. Ten surface combatants represent the bulk of the forces the US Navy has at sea in an area nearly twice size of the United States, to believe the United States Navy can solve the pirate problem on top of its existing regional commitments is asking too much.

However, the question is, can the international community make a difference? European Navies are shrinking, the Royal Navy is currently represented in the region by 5 warships, 2 of which are escorting their aircraft carrier. Those five warships represent 20% of the Royal Navy's entire surface combatant fleet. Those Royal Navy warships also represent the largest presence in the region since the invasion of Iraq. That number will be dropping to two warships over the next several weeks.

France is represented by 3 warships, and that number will drop to two over the next several weeks as well. Europe has naval commitments in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, North Sea, North Atlantic, and all over the Mediterranean sea, and simply doesn't have the combined naval forces to surge to the region for any extended period of time, and nations that can rotate a warship to the region already do so. Canada has a large force of three ships heading to the region to assume control of TF 150 in several weeks, but this represents the largest force short of war Canada could contribute.

In this context it makes the approach to international institutions for assistance very appealing. Short of a massive surge by the United States Navy, a very unlikely scenario, the only way the international community is going to find enough ships to build an effective coalition to fight piracy is to include the worlds larger Navies, and most of those nations are in the Pacific.

Will China send ships? Will Russia? What about the worlds second largest Navy, Japan? Considering how controversial their refueling mission is, what are the odds they can forward deploy warships for a military operation? What about South Korea or Australia? Any coalition of naval forces should at least attempt to involve Africa's largest Navy, which is South Africa. What about the regions largest Navy, will Saudi Arabia participate? Is piracy a big enough problem to bring together a large enough international naval force to stop the problem? Unless something major happens, probably not.

In that context we believe there is a political element to the UN piracy discussion we are not politically savvy enough to fully analyze. We believe the Bush administration will go after a mandate specific to the authorization to take action against pirates, including right of pursuit into Somalian waters or territory, but will not attempt to expand the mandate to include Nigeria nor attempt to put together any sort of coalition naval force. However, we do believe that a public attempt to build that coalition is a good idea.

There is an interesting conundrum here. More than half of the maritime traffic in the region is either headed to or coming from the east towards Asia. The US Navy and the European Navies commit their warships to protecting that maritime traffic, and it pulls resources away from the protection of maritime traffic headed towards Europe, which is the target of the Somalian pirates. This appears to be an opportunity to involve China and Russia, if not also South Korea and Japan into maritime security operations of the Middle East. The questions are, should the West even try to involve the East in Middle East maritime security operations, and would a different administration expend political energy towards the coalition approach rather than going primarily for the mandate?

We believe the Bush administration will be successful by only going for a UN mandate to take action, but we also think a broader coalition approach better reflects the desired processes expressed in the Navy's maritime strategy. We believe there is a philosophical difference evident in the options for mandate vs mandate + coalition. A coalition that includes the East may not even be possible, but we see the philosophical question to be whether the coalition approach should be a priority. We are not politically savvy enough to determine if this philosophical difference divides politically or not.

Think Long and Hard as You Contemplate What This Means

Four star flag officers, particularly Joint Combatant Commanders, do not resign in the middle of war because of a media report. I read the Esquire article from front to back 5 times, I cannot find a single negative quote from Adm. Fallon about President Bush. I see plenty of criticism from Barnett. The implication is Bush can't read, which is bullshit, or Fallon is being pushed out, which sounds more believable.

I might be mistaken, but I believe we are witness to Bush fire his first General/Admiral of the war. Think long and hard as you contemplate what that means.

There has been a political split in the Pentagon since 2005, when those who wanted to move forward under the cooperative model as opposed to the unilateral model for military action were able to shift the Pentagon position through the release of official strategic papers. Under Gates, the Pentagon has tried to shift to a cooperative phase from what has been a unilateral phase of military action. The cooperative approach is championed by Rice, Gates, and people like Adm. Fallon. Many neo-conservatives, which unfortunately includes a bunch of big blue Navy folks I won't name specifically, form up the unilateral military action side.

Dr. Barnett got the political context of his article all wrong, and by doing so Dr. Barnett opened himself up to be the political scapegoat for the administration. He should have seen this coming. Dr. Barnett needs an adviser, because he is a producer of the strategic vision that many young officers are building upon, we see it in Armed Forces Journal, Proceedings, and any number of professional papers that reflect "The Brief". However, by becoming the champion for what amounts to a shift to cooperative strategy, Dr. Barnett has made himself a target of the unilateral folks. I find it ironic that lack of partisanship is Dr. Barnett’s weakness. Because he isn’t partisan, he isn’t politically savvy enough to see this type of political blindside coming.

When you look at the state of our nation, sometimes I wonder if the enemy has us exactly where they want us. The right is having an uncivil political war between moderates and conservatives, throwing their own under a bus. The left is divided due to identity politics, and they are busy throwing their own under a bus, under all media spotlight no less. Meanwhile the Pentagon is divided on how to move forward in a war where they have poor intelligence, weak diplomacy, and limited leadership.

If you didn't read the Esquire piece, or didn't read my earlier response, you may of just missed what could in fact be a signal of war to Iran. I know one thing, if I was Iran, that is the only way to read this. There was a message for Iran in the Barnett article:

Admiral William Fallon shakes his head slowly, and his eyes say, These guys [Iran] have no idea how much worse it could get for them. I am the reasonable one.

Are we assuming the Bush administration can't read, Barnett is saying that, Barnett makes all the cuts at the Bush administration in the article, not Fallon. Barnett appears to have been dead right though. Reasonable people who do nothing wrong don't quit because a reporter writes an article bad about a politician, but unreasonable people can make that person quit. I really am stunned, I have never really believed the US was going to strike Iran until today.

Good Day For America

I am very pleased to see Hillary Clinton do well tonight. I will never vote for her personally, but I used to know her personally so my reasons aren't yours. I may yet vote for Obama one day.

This is bigger than her though. In America we have somehow come to a point where before the election even happens the media tells us the outcome, and encourages contenders to drop out. Mike Huckabee, another person I would never vote for, didn't drop out of the race until he was out of the race. Good for him. Congratulations to John McCain, a man I never thought I'd vote for in my life, but whose class alone might win my vote.

I spend too much time reading the Russian papers, and it was hard to watch the Russian controlled media basically pick the winners before the votes take place. The public was resigned to Putin's choice because from the Russian media's perspective, there was no other choice.

I look at our nation and observe similarities and contrasts. The US media has been attempting to execute the same control over Democratic Party voters before they get their say on election day. They carry too much hubris to see how similar they are in that regard to what recently happened in Russia.

It pleases me to no end to continuously observe the media get it wrong in the US. It is one of the best signs we will ever visibly observe that it is the people who have the voice, not those who talk the most at us, and in our country we the people decide what happens.

The elections today, regardless of the final outcome, was a good sign for democracy, it was a good day for America.

Super Tuesday Observations

I will never claim to be smart about politics. This is my observation, take it or leave it.

I'll stick with my prediction, Clinton will win the Dem nominee regardless how many delegates Obama has come convention, the system was never designed to be fair. I hope I'm wrong.

Conservatives and Progressives eat each other and eat their own. Example, the way DailyKos deals with those out of step (Lieberman) or the way talk radio does the same (Schwarzenegger) are both good examples. Both groups have sharp teeth, chew every bite, and clean the plate. The perception of perfection matters to partisans, which is why partisans defend presidents like Bill Clinton or George Bush, even though both are moderates with records that aren't as good as advertised by their respective partisans.

Despite what partisans think, moderates in both parties have the same passion as partisans, but moderates will weigh advantages and disadvantages, and will accept a bloody trail with less than perfection to get the outcome they desire. Moderates are not not troubled by political chaos. Example, both Lieberman and Schwarzenegger still get elected despite their own partisans, who ultimately can't do anything but accept it.

Clinton and McCain both claim to be partisans, but are in fact moderates, the records of both prove this. I believe Progressives should get ready to see what the bloody trail looks like when the moderate, in this case Clinton, pushes back within her own party. If progressives are looking for a preview of the near future, they should take a look at the conservatives right now.

BTW, personally, I think all of it is very healthy for both our nation and politics, although the media calls it turmoil. The MSM is mostly partisan, which explains their line of thought as they search for the perception of perfection. I'm not a partisan, I'm a moderate, so I observe all this internal chaos within political parties as a sign of progress.

At the end of the day, I've weighed advantages and disadvantages, which is what moderates do. I'm rooting for McCain and Obama for the primary. In my book of disadvantages, I basically disagree with both on various policy positions, but I also disagree with all of their contenders on policy as well, so policy has become a wash as a metric. The advantages from my POV of these two men is that both are statesmen, both are men of character, and both are exactly what they say they are. Given the choices in the field, with no clear leader on policy alone, I'll take the people who are the real thing over the people who will be anything.

I think I represent the thinking of most GenX moderates voters in both parties.

Another thought, the reason Democrats are outvoting Republicans almost 2 to 1 is simple. Conservatives aren't voting. In our blame centric society, McCain is taking the blame, but in reality the fault is more due to the lack of clear choices for conservatives, after all, Romney, Huckabee, Rudy, Thompson, Ron Paul, ... they are all moderates. The conservatives are complaining because they presume their guy isn't getting votes. I would argue they are blinded by their desire for the perception of perfection. If they want to blame someone, they should blame themselves, conservatives fielded a single conservative candidate, Duncan Hunter, of which no conservatives gave any money or support to.

Observing the Democrat Debate

This debate has been interesting to observe, credit CNN, but major credit to the Politico. I'm hearing something for the first time in my lifetime, a thoughtful discussion on foreign policy by two Democrat Presidential candidates that lasts longer than 10 minutes on a TV station other than CSPAN.

....

In my opinion, Obama just kicked Hillary Clinton's ass on foreign policy on national TV. Obama might be the first Democrat presidential candidate who can articulate a clear foreign policy vision in my lifetime, the contrast between Obama and Clinton was stark on the topic. Hillary was almost completely guided by the talking points of the Center for American Progress, but Obama was specific in vision and articulate in presentation, and didn't rely on any of the typical rhetoric.

I'm not saying I buy in, but I am saying I was caught off guard by Obama's clarity. From my point of view, it has been very rare to observe a Democrat that can project strength in foreign policy in an articulate way. Traditionally clarity in politics from Democrats comes on domestic policy, at least in presidential contests. Clearly Obama is ready to pull out of Iraq, I think most Americans are and that was the ultimate goal of the surge, to set up that capability for our Iraq policy, but instead of shaping a perception of retreat he discusses transition strategies while also quickly shifting focus to Afghanistan. Clinton didn't bring up Afghanistan until after Obama did, which I think is a major distinction. Public visible statesmanship on foreign policy was one aspect of leadership Bill Clinton always fell short, his skills in statesmanship were always in domestic leadership, and his wife is similar in that regard. He charmed other countries, particularly allies, but he never could influence and Kosovo is a visible example.

What is interesting is Obama sounds like a Hawk on Afghanistan. I think that is an interesting dynamic because if Bush is able to close out a force reduction strategy in Iraq, the implication going into the general election is that Obama will deal with Afghanistan. Should he win the Democrat Primary, that would be a fascinating dynamic, observing two presidential candidates in John McCain and Barack Obama debate the Long War. That's a debate I'd watch.

Clinton sounds simpleton when talking about foreign policy, in fact other than a very sharp wit, something every wife inherits with the words "I do", I'm yet to observe one instance of her implied intelligence or wisdom on any policy issue.

Clinton is all talking points on the war and foreign policy, she offers no substance and no vision on the subject. She lacks the depth to educate which implies either a lack of interest, or a lack of understanding. Sad she is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She goes back and forth, playing to the base on how the war is terrible, then citing Operation Desert Fox as her reasoning for authorizing Iraq. She wants it both ways.

I still think Clinton would be more impressive staying where she sounds smartest, in the center and behind her voted positions, but like Mitt Romney she doesn't have an identity so she comes off as speaking at the political party base, rather than with the political party base. Both Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney have records that say one thing while the mouth is saying something else. That doesn't fly in Presidential elections, I don't think either can or will win a general election if they win their respective nomination.

It is interesting that both Obama and McCain are exactly who they say they are. Everyone knows McCain is in the middle, and that is where McCain has stayed, being true to himself. Obama is very similar in that regard, Obama is on TV even now in the midst of a very competitive election exactly who he says he is in both of his books, and as reflected by his voting record. Say what you want about the policies of either man, but it is quite refreshing to observe American politics where there are viable candidates in both parties who appear to be exactly who they say they are, as opposed to what we have seen in the past where a front runner establishes themselves, says they are everything to everyone, then does their own thing. In that regard, being true to oneself, both Obama and McCain are like Reagan who was also every bit who he said he was. Such statements are blasphemy to partisans, who get caught up on policy positions.

I have read the political analysis that says the Republicans are divided, or that the Democrats are divided. I'd argue there are two factors being ignored to explain why. GenerationX never fit very well into either party in lockstep like the Boomers who came before, and when large section of the base of the Democrat party shifted to the fringes of the left, it dragged the center further to the left and has resulted in a bigger tent Republican party that includes many with liberal views who reject the progressive movement, and prefer being simply 'moderate' and or independent.

One last thought. I hope during the general election someone in the media realizes there is a war taking place and sponsors a general election debate at the Naval War College or maybe even Ft. Leavenworth. The foreign policy discussion was clearly the highlight of the debate. I think the biggest divide right now between Republicans and Democrats is foreign policy. A general election debate on the subjects, which include everything from globalization, global trade, Asia policy, Middle East policy, military policy, and homeland defense would be a good thing for the country, and a good thing for both political parties, moving into the 21st century after Bush.