Sunset over Virginia, 2-14-06

The CNN Debates

Ah, the CNN debates. First the general. Both were emceed by Wolf Blitzer, which I believe worked better than the earlier debate format (at least overall). The flexibility he had to keep the pace moving and ask follow up questions allowed for more interaction, which after all is what debates are supposed to be. Both the Democratic and Republican groups (8 and 10 folks, respectively) kept to their expected party lines, with for the most part only some limited variations between candidates within a party. The Republicans managed to tie every issue to "national security" ("Fear Factor"), while the Democrats often dealt with issues as independent from each other ("Living in a Vacuum").

In Sunday's Democratic session, Hillary Clinton clearly was in the most control of the debate. At times I felt the other candidates were looking up to her rather than debating her. Her main strength was turning every question into an attack on the current Administration rather than an attack on her fellow Democratic candidates. Conversely, Edwards spent most of his time trying (unsuccessfully in my opinion) to challenge Clinton and Obama. The two surprises to me were the lack of Richardson's ability to project comfort in his answers and Biden's outspoken "straight shooter" persona. The others were largely for counterpoint and/or entertainment value (not to minimize their very useful contributions, since they often were less afraid to offer more daring opinions). Richardson clearly should be considered Vice-President material, as should be Senator Dodd, who was actually quite good in his supporting role. Biden might also be a good VP, though I doubt he would take the job (nor would I recommend it to him...he can be much more effective where he is currently).

In tonight's Republican debate, Guiliani strengthened his leadership persona, comfortably fielding questions and calmly deflecting any criticism. He clearly learned from the pundit's assessment of Clinton's performance (and Ronald Reagen's rule about not criticizing fellow Republicans) and turned most questions into a chance to accuse Democrats of being clueless, weak, and downright dangerous. McCain showed much more restraint and control (well, for the most part) than the previous debate and came off being forceful and capable. Romney showed that he is likeable and a good communicator (I would suggest that he is Republican version of Bill Clinton, albeit with higher moral standards, but I'm guessing Romney would not appreciate the comparison). Some of the other Republicans had their moments, but it's likely it'll come down to these three, plus whatever happens with Thompson (Fred, not Tommy) and possibly even Gingrich.

There were some scary moments in tonight's debate. One was when lightening apparently interfered with the microphones just as Guiliani was beginning to explain his abortion views (divine wrath?). Another scary moment was listening to Huckabee's religiosity lecture. Overall, God and Ronald Reagen were ubiquitously "in the room" throughout the Republican debate. God was at the Democratic debate as well, though perhaps spent most of his time in the Green Room (providing a moral compass but not given credit for steering the ship).

Because of the lengthening of the campaign process for this presidential election, there will apparently be many more debates. Presumably the numbers of participants will decrease (Wolf clearly didn't give equally time to everyone, but everyone did get some air time). My hope is that after the minor candidates drop out that the debates can be reformatted towards "single issue" sessions. Let one hour be entirely on Iraq/War on Terror/Iran/etc. Another can be on immigration. Another on education. Etc. Doing so will allow something more than the sound bite mentality, where candidates take advantage of their brief on-air time to spout their canned talking points. Even if a particular candidate does not become the nominee, such an issue-oriented format will surely stimulate more lively, interactive discussion, which could result in some more daring, yet exceptionally good ideas being put on the table.

Book Review – "The Assault on Reason" by Al Gore

In The Assault on Reason, Al Gore writes a scathing rebuke to the policies of the Bush Administration. He unabashedly accuses Bush, Cheney, and their “cronies” of lying, deception, power-mongering, abuse of the public trust, “manufacturing consensus”, and outright law breaking. And not just any laws – Gore accuses Bush of having broken Constitutional laws. To say that the book is impassioned in its criticism of the administration would be an understatement. Yet, as with his passionate advocacy in “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore offers an intelligent and reasoned look at how the administration's actions reflect what he sees as, well, an assault on reason.

Despite the time spent on laying the groundwork, the main points of the book can be discerned from two chapters. In “Democracy in the Balance” Gore examines how what he sees as the over-reaching power grab of the executive branch, coupled with the lack of legislative oversight and the stacking of the judiciary, has damaged the very existence of our democracy. The manipulation and/or lack of courage of the media contributes to this problem. In “A Well-Connected Citizenry,” Gore takes what he sees as the lack of public participation and awareness to be an area in major need of correction. Television remains the primary medium for most people to receive information about the world, yet television is a one-way communicator and susceptible to the manipulation by those with money and access. Perhaps Gore’s views are best summarized by the following (p.254):

“The remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the reestablishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way – conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response.”

By public participation and connectivity (e.g., by becoming aware and exchanging ideas), we can recapture the basic checks and balances of our democracy, ensure government governs wisely for all its constituents (not just the narrow special interests), and reestablish American credibility and leadership in the world.

While the book clearly could have used some stronger editing, it is an important book that should be on any informed person’s (or anyone wishing to be informed) reading list. Check out the link in the right column of my blog if you want to order.

Kazakhstan

I'm concerned about Kazakhstan. Not because of Borat (who probably has done more to boost the nascent tourism industry there than any one). Rather I mean the recent political situation. First the president introduced some changes into the constitution, according to which the terms of the next and any succeeding presidents would be reduced from 7 to 5 years. This would be considered a good sign. But after that the parliament introduced another change that would likely allow the current president to stay in power forever due to his historical role following the demise of the Soviet Union and independence of the former Soviet states. In addition, the government has cracked down severely on the media, such that it basically can't report anything that questions policy.

Unfortunately, the populace is way too passive about this following generations of soviet rule. The United Nations apparently can't do anything but hand-waving (assuming it even bothers to do this). The United States has certainly reduced any influence it could have exerted (assuming it had any influence in the region to begin with). What concerns me most is that all of this will go largely unnoticed by the world as we focus on more obvious problem areas.

Is this simply business as usual? Shouldn't we care more about the Kazakh people (and others in the same situation)? I wish I could do more to help.

Solitude (2007)

Bush League

It's growing increasingly difficult to hold my tongue. Today President Bush declassified selected intelligence information on Usama bin Laden's activities in Iraq - FROM 2 YEARS AGO!! This highlights several things:

1) The Administration screwed up by dropping our "war on terror" and chasing down bin Laden in Afganistan so Bush/Cheney could pursue an ill-informed, ill-planned, and ill-executed, personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein. [For the record, we're all glad he's gone]

2) Iraq was NOT an opportunity for al Q'aeda UNTIL AFTER WE WENT THERE AND ENSURED THE CONDITIONS WERE RIPE FOR THEIR GROWTH. Now it's a breeding ground for terrorists.

3) The Administration has ZERO credibility - as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of Americans and the world see right through Bush's obvious attempt at sleight of hand (it's not a civil war we're in the middle of in Iraq...it's a war on al Q'aeda). Like somehow this makes it more likely that we'll trust him to make the correct moves to win this thing. [Saying we must win doesn't mean that incompetence will suddenly start working because we have some sort of moral authority].

4) The President and the people who think for him are clueless in that they still don't understand that selectively releasing information to re-invent reality to fit a political agenda further damages the Administration's reputation, and worse, the reputation of the United States. Besides the obvious damage to our national credibilty (and influence) in the world (which could take decades to rebuild), Bush has created the perfect set of conditions to allow countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China (especially China) to exploit our weaknesses and gain undue regional and worldwide political and economic influence.

Frankly, it's gone way beyond embarrasing...it's now become dangerous.

Saw just a few minutes of Larry King's interview with Al Gore tonight (so this may be out of context). But I was struck by a bit of irony. Gore is touting his new book that apparently lambastes our current President's decision-making, as well as the media. Gore had just finished telling Larry why he didn't intend to be a candidate for president in 2008 (which he has said consistently and often). He then went into a discussion of how the line between news and entertainment was often blurred (see my earlier blog about the media). He gave credit to Larry (as a rare exception) for clearly delineating between shows about news and shows about entertainment. Then, as he opined about this blurring of the line, CNN put up one of those tickler footers (static, not a scroll) asking whether Gore would be a presidential candidate. He just said he wouldn't....yet they put up the graphic anyway. Why? Because anyone reading the tickler who just tuned in wouldn't know that he just said he wasn't going to run...and so the viewer may want to continue watching to find out if Gore was entering the race. Talk about blatant attempt to enhance ratings. Exactly the thing Gore was chastizing the media for as they proved him right. How ironic is that?

Republican Debate

Following on the heels of last week's Democratic entree, last night the 10 (currently announced) Republican candidates for president debated in a similar format. While having that many candidates on one stage at the same time resulted in limited opportunities to hear any one candidate's views, some initial insights can be drawn.

Like the Democrats, the Republican candidates probably fall into three tiers - front runner, second tier possibles, and pipe dreamers. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans are a little more difficult to pigeon-hole into groups. In part this is because there is less diversity among the candidates, both in the traditional "diversity" sense and in their views. Republicans have raised to an art form the ability to stay "on message," in contrast to the Democrats who often have a variety of messages (I'll leave it to you to decide whether having one single focused message that defines a party is a good or a bad thing).

The front runners did distinguish themselves from each other somewhat. One was uncomfortably passionate (I couldn't tell if it was because he was trying to show strength or if he was trying to restrain the passion). One was incredibly well spoken and clear in his presentation, while decidedly conservative (at least currently conservative). And one was somewhere in between in both delivery and message. It will be interesting to see whether style or substance becomes more important in the election.

One thing that was crystal clear is that whatever Republican candidate wins the nomination, the contrast from the Democrats will likely be striking. Granted, there is one combination of candidates in which it would be harder to discern differences on some issues, but in the one key issue likely to drive out the vote the Republicans are almost universally in support of the war surge (and will fight the "surrender date") and the Democrats just as universally want to bring the troops home ASAP (most at whatever cost).

Certainly things can change dramatically in the many (many) months before the first primaries. On the Democratic side it is unlikely that any new faces will emerge, so we're pretty much stuck with the current cast. On the Republican side it is quite possible that one or two "true conservatives" will join the fray, though my personal feeling is that this is unlikely.

Great Falls, MD 2007

Alas...work beckons in the capital of the free world (as they say)

...the afternoon wanes in KZ (end of the day)

Souls rise to meet the ensuing hours...hearts race...

...life exults...this is the way

Democratic Debate

I returned from a trip that took me through Europe and Texas just in time to catch the first Democratic presidential debate. Now, the value of a "debate" nearly a year before the first presidential primaries is, well, debatable. Having said that it did provide a bit of insight that should inform voters as the spectacle unfolds over the coming months. First, it was clear that there are three tiers of candidates: 1) those with a solid chance of getting the nomination, barring any foot-in-mouth incidents, 2) those that perhaps would be good candidates if the public takes the time to listen to their views, and 3) the nuts. I'll not bias readers with whom I would put into each category.

Second, some of the candidates are more linguistically adept than others. Whether this stems from natural eloquence versus practiced political experience perhaps is less important than the fact that the current president has virtually guaranteed that voters will select someone better able to communicate their thoughts. Or even have coherent thoughts.

Third, that there were a few suprises. Media analysis of the debate seemed to settle on the conclusion that no one really locked themselves out of the running. I disagree. One candidate that I had rested high hopes on came off (in my opinion, at least) much less capable than I would have expected, both in terms of ideas and the ability to communicate them. Conversely, another candidate that I hadn't put much stock in came off as being more thoughtful and capable than expected.

Certainly there were some hints as to who would likely be able to perform their presidential duties well. And while the idea of having 2+ years of running for president seems painful (all by candidates that should be busy doing the real jobs we pay them for, like being a senator), perhaps given our current circumstances it is a good thing to have sufficient time to really get to know the candidates' views. Assuming, of course, that we, the voters, take the time to do so.

The Republican debate, with its own cast of characters, is set for next week. I look forward to seeing which of them can be a viable future president.

Time to Compromise on Iraq

I read today (4/10/07) an opinion piece by Washington Post columnist David Broder. I recommend it to anyone interested in where we go from here in Iraq. You should be able to find it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR2007040901002.html

In it Mr. Broder states pretty much the obvious, though clearly the obvious has been ignored to date. While I have been patient (to the extent that I can) with the Democratic "fact finding" hearings about anything and everything ever done by the Bush Administration, the time for getting down to real work is upon us. Relative to Mr. Broder's column, it's time for Congressional Democrats (and Republicans) AND the President to work together to find a path forward. Mr. Broder's suggestions are thoughtful and doable (though obviously any ultimate success depends largely on what the Iraqis decide is in their own best interest; after all it is their country). Clearly, however, any serious path forward requires both political sides in the US to drop their partisan egos long enough to realize that our soldiers lives, as well as the lives of countless Iraqis and innumberable future generations of all countries, are more important than whether Bush wins or the Democrats win.

Washington DC Cherry Blossoms 2007

of the people, by the people, for the people

I was watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other night, and he was making fun of some politician as usual. He had Doris Kearns Goodwin, author of "Team of Rivals" on the phone. Now "Team" is about Abraham Lincoln during the civil war, and the main theme of her book is how he gathered those rivals who most disagreed with him into his cabinet, figuring it was better to have them inside arguing their points rather than outside undermining the process. In contrast, Jon Stewart showed a clip of John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations, saying that, of course President Bush only surrounds himself with those who agree with him, after all, these are the people who elected him and why would he want to give anyone else a dissenting voice.

Frankly, this is more than a bit scary. If I recall, Bush gained the presidency in 2000 by a narrow margin of electoral votes (and a Supreme Court judgment) after losing the popular vote. Even in 2004 his victory margin was small, and despite a "don't change horses in the middle of a war" attitude, again it came down to a somewhat controversial electoral vote. My point here is not to rehash the elections - President Bush won both elections fair and square and within the legal constraints of our election system. No, my point is that in both elections the populace was fairly evenly divided, with roughly half of the voters choosing the other guy.

So to cater to the side that voted for you as if it were some sort of mandate is patently ridiculous. As Lincoln so eloquently noted (alas, eloquence is not a Bush forte), government should be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Meaning, of course, that the President is elected to govern for everyone in the country, even those who didn't vote for him. I'm not suggesting he kowtow to the "anti-anything-Bush" Democrats or radicals on the left, but perhaps a little more attention to the views of the center might be in order. Consider this - the administration has been so partisan, so "I'm right, you're wrong" in all of its actions - that Senate majority leader Harry Reid can get away with saying something inflammatory like (and I paraphrase), Bush has to remember he is President of the United States, not King of the United States. When such a statement brings nods of agreement from such a large proportion of Americans, clearly something is wrong at the top.