Interesting article from the New York Times yesterday entitled, Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are ‘Wasting Time.’

It begins: “Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects” [emphasis mine].

Obviously, Hillary’s a centrist. Look, she’s in a red state! She wants to focus on mainstream subjects!

What? Does it look I’m nitpicking, seeing what I want to see? Hey, I didn’t say it, the article did: “But the trip to Arkansas this weekend had a more sentimental feel, reuniting Mrs. Clinton with her former political allies and giving her a platform to broadcast her more centrist background” [emphasis mine, once again].

Wait? You’re still not convinced there’s an agenda to portray Hillary as a centrist at any cost?

Well, er… what if I told you that the article misrepresented what Hillary said? Hillary was actually criticizing Republicans. Oops!

Now, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Maybe the author really thinks Hillary is a moderate. Or misunderstood the speech… sometimes that happens, even to the journalists/immortals who could’ve prevented WWII.

Oh well, keep trying NY Times. Sooner or later, you’ll convince us…

EDIT: Bah, what I wrote sucks ass, but I still like my comic.

EDIT: Added strike-through.

Every time Iran hiccups, the price of oil goes up. The price of oil is flying to record rates during this latest conflagration of violence in the Middle East. Who benefits when oil is more expensive? Why, Iran, of course.

Iran backs Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. Hezbollah has been launching hundreds of missiles in Israel, and Israel has no choice but to defend itself. Violence in the Middle East sends jitters throughout the market, which drives the price of oil higher and higher.

Others are speculating that this is being done to take attention away from Iran, or it’s Iran sending a message: Don’t mess with us. I don’t deny any of that, but I’m pretty sure one element in Iran’s calculations is the almighty dollar. It’s not a stretch of imagination at all to think that Iran is intentionally trying to destabilize the region in order to drive oil prices up.

EDIT: I wanted to emphasize: One element. The situation is infinitely more complex than my summary, but it would be foolish to think that Iran has no hand in this. Now, I’m more inclined to think that this is merely a pleasant side effect rather than a root cause. Still, I thought it was an interesting, different angle to examine, even if it is probably false.

I’m a happy Republican, and I don’t foresee a third party coming to power any time soon. The likely thing that happens is that a third party will siphon votes from another party. With that in mind, I decided to do a little thought experiment: Create a party that cuts across ideological lines. This entry does not imply any endorsement of third party ravings, nor an endorsement of my hypothetical party’s ideas, and is simply an exercise in the realm of the hypothetical.

I would call it the Secure America Party. Here’s my platform:

• Victory in Iraq
• Secure our borders
• Energy independence
• Universal health care

Let’s explain each bit in full:

Victory in Iraq – Iraq is one of the major concerns of the American people. For any party to win, it needs a strategy for victory in Iraq. Most other third party ideas lack a plan for Iraq, and I think that’s a recipe for losing the election. The third party allows itself to distance itself from both the cut-and-run Democrats and the bumbling Bush administration’s handling of the war. Most Americans, on both sides of the political spectrum, want to win the war. The Secure America Party would have two prongs in its Iraq strategy. Since sectarian violence is threatening to tear Iraq, the first prong is dedication to stability in Iraq via an increase in military action. No more pussyfooting… take the shackles off the military and let it do its job. The second prong is to conduct this war in a responsible manner that respects civil liberties and will bring the international community in to help, especially with the bill, since we pay so much for Iraq. The SAP will attempt to placate some hardliners, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and liberals who want us to win.

Secure our borders – Polls consistently show that Americans want the border secured. They also want some path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have been here a long time and who have families. This is an issue that splits both Democrats and Republicans, so the SAP would have a good chance of siphoning off votes from both parties. It will advocate a phased solution: secure our borders first, and then amnesty. The SAP will call for all criminals who are illegal immigrants to be instantly deported. It will also call for all back-taxes to be paid, for additional penalties to be paid, and require all immigrants to learn English. SAP will also crack down on businesses who hire illegal immigrants, which is critical for any immigration plan to work.

Energy independence – SAP will support a Clean Energy Initiative that will provide massive funding for science and will also put strict requirements on businesses to build cleaner cars, etc. Or something like that. Since this isn’t a real party, I don’t really have to worry about the exact details. SAP will grab votes for those who care about global security. We will take away funding from dangerous regimes. SAP will also grab votes from environmentalists who care about clean energy. Many people are also angry about high gas prices and this will alleviate some of those worries.

Universal health care – Mostly, I put this to pull in more liberal votes, since I don’t think I’ve done a good enough job. Still, SAP will try to put a pro-business spin on this, as well. After all, businesses can make more money if they don’t have to worry about paying for all those health benefits.

There you have it. That’s my idea for a third party that could cut across ideological lines and steal enough votes from both parties so that it can win. Of course, what it’s missing is something all moderately successful third parties have: Powerful personalities. Without this, even with my aforementioned platform, the Secure American Party will go nowhere.

Momentum is a tricky thing. In a football game, you could say one team has momentum on its side, and then — BAM! — interception! Momentum has shifted to the other side. It’s even worse in politics when things aren’t so cut and dry as to who has the ball. Thus, I preface this entry with the caveat that things can change very quickly. With that said, I will make my tentative predictions.

Not too long ago, if you had asked me if the Democratic Party had a chance, I would’ve said, “No way.” No matter what Democrats did, they could not change the tide. Cindy Sheehan? No. Katrina? No.

The Democratic Party’s ineptitude combined with the forces of gerrymandering made me sure the Republicans would retain control of both the House and Senate. There were too few competitive seats to make a Democratic takeover likely. In fact, I began wondering if the Dems were on the road to political suicide.

Then, I started to worry. It wasn’t an interception moment, though. It was a combination of things. To me, it started with the Dubai Ports deal. For the first time, people trusted Democrats on national security as much as they did Republicans. National security was the reason Bush beat out Kerry. Our vice president also shot someone in the face. The State of the Union address was lackluster. Bush’s approval ratings kept dipping. More and more sour news came from Iraq. Corruption scandals abounded.

Bush appeared adrift. I have this May 29, 2006 U.S News and World Report sitting on this table (along with an old copy of the Atlantic and Discover) with the cover, “How Low Can He Go? Even Republicans Worry Whether Bush Can Still Govern.” The shake-up of the Bush cabinet was an unconvincing bit of political theater.

The final straw was immigration. The Senate was about pass a horrible bill on immigration that would enrage the base. (We got a different bill that still enrages the base.) This seemed to be the issue that would make the Republican base sit at home instead of going to the ballot box during the midterm elections. Instead of contemplating political suicide of the Democrats, I wondered if Bush was going to commit political suicide with his immigration speech.

Rove looked like he was out to lunch — everything seemed to be catching Bush off-guard. This was probably because of the whole Scooter-Libby investigation/fiasco going on.

All these factors indicated a momentum shift. Polls showed approval of Congress at the same level as 1994, when Republicans swept the Democrats out of office. Now, the Democrats had control. All they had to do was not do something really stupid and they would coast to victory.

However, the political winds have shifted once more. After the killing of top terrorist in Iraq, al-Zarqawi, and a secret visit to Baghdad, Bush appeared re-energized. He was cracking jokes at his press conference (accidentally making fun of a blind reporter’s shades). Plus, he’d recently managed to snag Henry Paulson, a Wall Street all-star, as his new treasury secretary.

In other good news (for Republicans), Rove wasn’t indicted. This should start to free him up for the midterm elections. Moreover, the White House shake-up gave him one job instead of two, so he could focus on politics and not policy-making.

In a special election in California’s 50th District, Bilbray beat out his Democratic challenger in a district tainted by the corrupt Randy “Duke” Cunningham. This does not bode well for the Democrat’s “culture of corruption” strategy, which attempts to paint the Republicans as corrupt and, hence, need to be thrown out. In addition, a Democrat, Congressman Jefferson, was caught taking bribes. So much for a Republican culture of corruption.

Although you won’t see Bush’s approval ratings climbing really high once again, I still believe momentum has shifted in the Republican’s favor. Remember, I predicted the Democrats wouldn’t gain Congress in the wake of many possible political disasters for the Republicans (like Katrina). I think the Republicans have pulled out of the danger zone.

The hot button issue of immigration helped Bilbray win. Other House Republicans can campaign on this issue, taking a hard-line stance, and also win — all over the country. Of course, this is the House. The Senate did pass its amnesty bill, which means Republican Senators may be in trouble. With a re-energized Bush and Rove — remember, Bush is a great fundraiser–, I think Republicans will retain the House and probably the Senate as well.

This prediction is based on the idea of a shift in momentum. Momentum could shift again. We’ve still got an eternity left, in political terms, until the actual elections.

This from my (very) local paper, the Argus, a contrast between Schwarzenegger and Angelides, the two candidates for governor in California:

“Angelides wants to raise taxes on high-income earners and corporations; Schwarzenegger wants to hold the line.

“Schwarzenegger blocked giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; Angelides would endorse it.

“The governor signed an order deploying National Guard troops to the border; Angelides opposes Bush’s plan to use troops to curb illegal immigration.”

And there you have it. Angelides will raise your taxes and give the money to illegal immigrants. (Hahaha.) No, really, anyone who’s serious about the problems illegal immigration poses should vote for Schwarzenegger over Angelides. Moreover, can anyone count on Angelides to stop with “high-income earners and corporations”?

Judging from the way Californians recently rejected all those measures that would raise taxes (even the preschool one that taxes high-income earners), painting Angelides as someone who’ll raise taxes is a good strategy.

My redesign for The Chalkboard Manifesto is nearing its final stages. Things are winding down. As my energy for the redesign ebbs, my energy will start to flow back into this weblog. In fact, I’ll start writing some things about the latest election results in California, my home state.

Item 1:

In the biggest race, Angelides defeats Westly in the Democratic primary for governor. Angelides will now go on to run against Schwarzenegger. If you live in California, and you’ve been watching network television at all, you’ve probably seen the negative ads Westly and Angelides were running. The campaign was pretty nasty. After Westly pledged to run a positive campaign, he turns around and runs an attack ad. Thus ensued the mudslinging. The winner after all this mud was slung? Schwarzenegger.

In April, the polls showed Schwarzenegger gaining a significant lead over both Democratic challengers for the first time. Meanwhile, in March, Schwarzenegger was dead even with either candidate. This is definitely the result of all the negative campaigning.

Now, since in this particular poll Schwarzenegger led Angelides 49% to 36%, while he led Westly 48% to 40%, I suppose Republicans might be happier with an Angelides victory, but we’ll see.

It’s funny. Westly campaigned as a moderate, but he and Angelides were practically indistinguishable policy-wise.

My main concern: How nasty will the general election be?

Item 2:

Prop. 82 was rejected. It was a measure to fund preschool for all 4 year olds in California. How were they going to pay for it? By raising taxes on the wealthy.

Preschool is a good idea, but this was the wrong way to go about it. First of all, with our K-12 school system in tatters, money should be going there first.

Secondly, making only rich people subsidize preschool? Ah yes, let’s tax the rich, that’s the solution to all our problems. If we want preschool for all Californians, then all Californians should help pay the burden.

Item 3:

In the 50th Congresssional District, Bilbray (R) beat Busby (D). This race was interesting for multiple reasons. First, it was a special election to replace Randy “Duke” Cunningham, who “resigned from Congress and was sentenced to more than eight years in prison for taking bribes.” In this heavy Republican district, the Democratic challenger was able to mount a challenge because of corruption of the Republican candidate. It was seen as maybe a sign of things to come, depending on who won. I guess Democrats can pride themselves on a surprisingly strong showing, but that’s not going to win them the House or the Senate.

The other interesting thing was the focus on illegal immigration. According to the blog Right Wing News, “The Republican candidate, Brian Bilbray, beat out a crowded field in the Republican primary by making illegal immigration his primary issue.” Bilbray’s victory in the primary and the special election helps vindicate the appeal of the “enforcement-only” approach to illegal immigration. Republican Congressmen out there might want to take note. So should Bush and Rove, who are pushing amnesty.