I was thinking that if Bush wanted to be a uniter, not a divider, and wanted to change the situation in Iraq, he could fire Rumsfeld and hire a Democrat in his place. Highly unlikely, I know. But if you have any hope, here’s where I demolish that hope.

Scenario: Rumsfeld, suddenly, retires due to “health reasons.” In a surprise move to establish unity, Bush names a high-profile Democrat to the post of Secretary of Defense. The American public sees a little progress in Iraq. New Secretary of Defense gets the credit, not Bush, or Republican Party by extension. Secretary of Defense becomes next president.

Scenario Two: Rumsfeld, suddenly, retires due to “health reasons.” In a surprise move to establish unity, Bush names a high-profile Democrat to the post of Secretary of Defense. The situation in Iraq worsens. The political career of the Secretary of Defense is over.

Bush can’t replace Rumsfeld with a Democrat since if it helps the situation in Iraq, he’s helping Democrats win the presidency and look real good on security. Even if he tried, a Democrat probably wouldn’t want the job since they mostly see Iraq as a quagmire and impossible to improve. Ideology aside, it is very difficult to turn the situation in Iraq around, and if you don’t, your political career is over.

Why it might be good for the nation and the war on terror for Bush to replace Rumsfeld… I’ll leave you to figure that out. But you might as well not try since it’s never going to happen.

I know it’s an odd argument to make. Who’s out there saying Bush should replace Rumsfeld with a Democrat? Well, for one, I’m just wondering aloud that it might be cool if it happened. Secondly, I think I saw on Sullivan something about him thinking that Lieberman was pushing himself for Secretary of Defense?

Also, what if Bush replaced Rumsfeld with anyone? I think even a lot of Republicans want to distance themselves from Bush when it comes to the War in Iraq. Seriously, who the hell in Washington would want Rumsfeld’s job?

Item 1:

I was holding off on cheering for this until it was official, and now it is: Court Names Calderon Mexico’s President-Elect. Unfortunately, the losing candidate, Obrador, plans on defying the courts ruling. That’s the hard left, for ya. We take our peaceful transfers of power for granted here in America. It wasn’t always the normal state of affairs. In fact, when it first happened (when Jefferson replaced Adams), it was quite radical. Now, I’m not saying that Obrador will resort to violence, but we’ve already heard the *wink wink nudge nudge* earlier. That’s the far left, for ya. Pretending to be the champion of the people, but really only the champion of chaos.

Item 2:

The New York Times just figured out what I figured out a long time ago, and what many right-wing folks have figured out a long time ago. Immigration is going to be a big issue in this election. Article: “In Bellwether District, G.O.P. Runs on Immigration.”

This line was great: “In fact, many Republicans, on the defensive here and around the country over the war in Iraq, say they are finding that a hard-line immigration stance resonates not just with conservatives, who have been disheartened on other fronts this year, but also with a wide swath of voters in districts where control of the House could be decided.” Because I thought this was obvious a while ago. With the “in fact” it seems like this is a shocking revelation.

Whatevs. Slow news day, I guess. Then again, I think there was something in the article about political hacks a few weeks ago thinking this wasn’t an issue anymore? They should try listening to talk radio sometime. Not that they represent mainstream mainstream America, but these are the people who are probably going to vote for Republicans during midterm elections.

Item 3:

Bush finally names a replacement for Mineta, the old secretary of transportation: Mary Peters. Mineta created the disastrously incompetent Transportation Security Administration (TSA — an acronym I’m very familiar with, but some people don’t pay as much attention to flying as I do). I was glad to read a while back that he was gone. I’m hoping his replacement will be better. So far, it sounds like she’s a good manager. But her specialty is in highways. I think the outlook is dim on transportation security being drastically reformed for the better.

Just some unfiltered musing…

I think I’ll have to devote at least one chapter in my discourse about how so-called revolutionaries really have nothing more than a fetish for violence. I watched V for Vendetta the other day, and it only confirmed my thoughts. It always pisses me off when the story ends there, with the violent overthrow. The Parliament building blows up in the movie and suddenly everything’s supposed to be okay? Hellz naw. That’s when the real story starts. The French Revolution was an utter failure despite their success in violently pulling their king from absolute power.

The real strange thing is how my mind has forged a connection between the leftists and the neocons. The neocons share this fetish for violence. It seems like they believe violent conflict is inevitable with Iran. (Don’t believe me, read some Krauthammer.)

Really, it kind of reminds me of the games I used to play when I was a kid. Whenever I played with my Lego’s, every battle was epic and apocalyptic. Every battle escalated into an all-out war. By the end, either everyone dies or only one person survives. It seems like the neocons want this same kind of epic battle with the Islamofascists.

The leftist revolutionaries and the neocons both share the same short-sightedness. The neocons thought that once the statue of Saddam came tumbling down, democracy would magically appear. Once the mighty Americans bomb the shit out of people, then they suddenly want to be just like us. Yet, strangely, they forgot that once we defeated Hitler, it wasn’t as if democracy suddenly became the end-all, be-all. We had to battle the communists.

Of course, I’m generalizing. The neocons and the leftists will tell us their views are more nuanced.

The great Machiavelli told us that the people have two desires: To be free and to achieve revenge against those who would oppress them. These are two distinct desires. The revolutionaries and the neocons conflate the two. But to be free is something entirely different than defeating those who would oppress you. It is infinitely more difficult.

It doesn’t matter how nuanced your view is if your favorite, most inspiring stories, end with violence. That is where the story should begin.

Saying that someone is an Islamofascist, or Islamic fascist, doesn’t mean that all Muslims are fascists any more than saying that someone is a Chinese-American means that all Americans are Chinese or all Chinese are American.

I use the term because it’s the most accurate term out there for describing who these people are. The cartoon debacle proved that. They resorted to violence to try to get a Western government to repress an independent newspaper.

You know what? I looked up the oil barge thing, and it was very, very boring. Like, honestly, I give as much a shit about this as I give a shit about John Mark Karr. Which is a very small amount of shit!

(To steal from Mr. Colbert) All you need to know: Iran’s being a punk-ass bitch again.

I know that isn’t exactly a paragon of civilized political discussion, but I’m in “not giving a shit” mode.

I missed this story a few days ago: Iran tests short-range missile. Iran began a series of war games, but I don’t think the war games themselves are cause for alarm since the article says that: “Iran has routinely held war games over the past two decades to improve its combat readiness and to test equipment such as missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers.” Keyword: routinely. Nothing new. However, the surface-to-surface missiles they tested are troubling. They seem to be sending a signal similar to the one that North Korea was sending a while back, when were testing missiles. Is the message one telling the West to stay back, or is it aggression towards Israel? Or both? If only we lived in a world without nukes… this would not be troubling at all. One more thing: I wonder if they bought these missiles from Russia.

In the next bit of news from Iran: Iran ‘fires on Romanian oil rig’. An Iranian warship fired at a Romanian oil rig (owned by a private company) and then boarded and occupied the ship. I wonder how much attention this received in the news. (Probably not much.)

The explanation for this is murky: “The Romanian company in Iranian courts earlier this year over a dispute involving another oil rig, Fortuna, the financial weekly Saptamana Financiara has reported. It was unclear whether the incident was related to legal issues.” (Is that even proper grammar?)

Even if it did have legal issues, what gave Iran the right to take over the oil rig? I wish I knew more details, but the aggression on Iran’s part seems unwarranted.

I’ll be following this story.

In comic form:

Oh, and please vote for my comic.

John Dickerson’s article in Slate, Scare Them Back, inspired me to take a look at some of my past entries. First, though, since I know most of you are too lazy to click that and come back here, I’ll give a quick summary. Basically, he says that Democrats should counter the Republican fear-mongering strategy with their own fear-mongering: Republicans are encouraging more terrorists. In my opinion, that strategy won’t work. I’ll delve more into that, but first, I want to show what I wrote before.

Shortly after the 2004 elections, I wrote this: Advice to Democrats after Kerry Loss. I said terror decided the election. I said, “Democrats, if you want to win, you have to convince the general American public that you understand that radical Islam (called Islamofascism in some circles) is a threat to America, and the world.”

I hammered the point again in 2005 with this entry, Populism is Dead. I said, “Defeating terror is more important than defeating the Republicans.” I said, “Memorize this, Democratic Party: 9/11 was an overt act of war.”

If they had taken my advice, they would be poised to sweep the Senate and House, instead of victory being in question. Alright, perhaps not, but my point is still relevant another year later. Democrats have not convinced America that they take the War on Islamofascism seriously.

It’s pretty obvious why. All you have to do is delve into the Fray and find this gem: Why this obsession with the War on Terror?. I’ll reprint it in its entirety.

If you’d stop for a minute to really think about it, there’s nothing Bush or anybody else, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green or any other hue, can do to stop a small group of committed, resourceful terrorists from blowing themselves and any number of American persons, places or things into millions of small pieces. Nothing. The lack of terrorist attacks since 9/11 is more testimony to the lack of effort on the part of the terrorists than to anything we have done or could do.

Of course if we did that, we’d stay up nights, worried that the next breath might just be our last. At least the Republicans give some of us what we need: a false sense of security that works just as well as the real deal … until the Big One comes along. Republicans know that if we stop thinking that all terrorists look like Mohammed Atta and start considering the fact that they could just as well look like Timothy McVeigh, the panic would be palpable.

Perhaps we should start an Epicurean Party: Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die. Even good, fundamentalist Christians should be attracted to a platform that follows the Master’s teaching not to give thought for the morrow, for who knows when the hour comes for one to die?

Yes, let’s bury our heads in the sand. Let us go our merry little way and pretend that there aren’t extremists out there who want to wipe Israel off the map and America too. Let’s pretend 9/11 was just some isolated event, not an overt act of war.

If we are not vigilant, the odds of dying go way up. If Iran gets a nuke, the odds of dying go way up. If Islamofascists ignite regional or wider war, your odds of dying go up. Your hour of death will come much sooner.

Still, there’s a kernel of truth in Dickerson’s article: “Still, if Democrats don’t aggressively ask whether the Republican policies are inspiring a greater number of people to devote their lives to killing Americans than would otherwise be the case, we’ll miss a chance to have the kind of messy, realism-filled public debate we somehow continue to skirt.” We really need to have this messy, realism-filled public debate. That’s why I feel that we’re failing in Iraq.

However, my opinion is that the main reason why we aren’t having this debate is that there are still people out there who are not convinced of the very real threat of Islamofascism. (Disagree that this is the main reason? Please comment, I’d like to see other opinions on why we haven’t had the messy, realism-filled public debate. Bush is a close second reason, in my analysis.) Five years after 9/11 we’re still trying to convince people that terrorism is a threat. 9/11 was an overt act of war. The Democratic Party still hasn’t convinced the American people that they understand that.

When you’re presented a choice between someone who understands the existential threat posed to us and someone who doesn’t, you’ll pick the first choice. Yet, it’s a false dilemma. Bush understands the fact that there is a threat, but he does not understand the threat. He utterly failed in the execution of the War in Iraq.

Democrats, if you want to win, ignore Dickerson’s advice. First, you need to hammer home the point that you understand that there is a war on terror. Say it over and over and over without inserting the word “but” and you will convince the American people. Also, vehemently attack members of your own party who don’t understand the threat. At the same time, paint Bush as an incompetent who “executed” the war poorly. Stress execution. Many Republicans will agree with you on this point. Be above the fray and say that we need a real debate about the nature of the war and the way it is executed. Why didn’t we have an economic plan for Iraq? Don’t stress world community. Stress realism. Say that we need to either do what it takes to win in Iraq or pull-out. Be specific and be smart.

That’s my plan, but not all of it is critical. The main point is convince the American people that you’re serious about Islamofascism. I’ll repeat the most important part: Say that you understand that there is a war on Islamofascism over and over and over without inserting the word “but”. Vehemently attack members of your own party who don’t understand the threat.

One more time: Say that you understand that there is a war on Islamofascism over and over and over without inserting the word “but”. Vehemently attack members of your own party who don’t understand the threat.

I’m begging you to do this. Defeating the Islamofascists over the long haul is way more important than partisanship. We need you. We need a united America to defeat them.

Buried in an otherwise uninteresting article about Castro, I found this interesting little tidbit:

Russian President Vladimir Putin joined those sending greetings to the Cuban leader on his birthday and wished him a speedy recovery.

The Kremlin said Putin also promised that Russia and Cuba would continue to be ”active partners.” Putin’s government has sought to revive relations with the island, which had weakened following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russia is trying to reestablish ties with a brutal dictator — an anti-American brutal dictator. Hm.

No wish for a speedy recovery from me, Fidel.

I’m expanding my inquiry into the media’s participation in producing Hezbollah propaganda. This is old, but worth a read: The News We (CNN) Kept To Ourselves. It’s not about the current situation in Lebanon, but it could be relevant. Here we see how intimidation kept journalists from reporting certain stories. When Saddam was in power, their reporting could also put the lives of innocent Iraqis in danger. I hinted at intimidation in my first exploration of this topic, but it wasn’t pivotal to my argument.

How much are journalists being intimidated in Lebanon by Hezbollah? Of course, they didn’t intimidate Hajj into altering pictures of Beirut. That he did on his own accord. So, how much of a role does this intimidation playing? How is it altering their news coverage? I believe it is a component.

On to the second angle… Has anyone watched South Park? I love the show. I was watching “The Passion of the Jew” episode with Mel Gibson the other night. In it, Cartman watches “The Passion of the Christ,” and starts a Mel Gibson fan club. He dresses up as Hitler and hints at a “final solution,” but the adults in the club are completely oblivious, even when they start chanting in German. In South Park, people often fall for the stupidest things. So, I was just wondering if the media was just so unsavvy that they can’t recognize when they’re helping Israel be destroyed. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the case for some of them. “Goodness, all these Jews can do is murder civilians; I better help Hezbollah.”

While we’re on this topic, I have a few other things to say. First, here’s more media manipulation from Hezbollah. A supposed member of the Lebanese Red Cross cares so much about saving lives that he exploits a dead child for PR. Here’s the YouTube video which I will embed later. The weblog where I found that video claims that jihadi manuals have entire sections on media manipulation.

Still, I’m having trouble believing that it’s all just slick PR on Hezbollah’s part. I mean, they’re using the Lebanese people as human shields. Then, people die, and supposedly, the survivors are driven into the arms of Hezbollah. Does this sick chain of events make sense? Methinks that there is already Hezbollah sympathizing going on.

Finally, here’s one more article that’s a must-read: Hezbollah’s deadly hold on heartland.

The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell.

“Look what they did to this place,” Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. “Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?”

The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.

Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel.

This excerpt shows exactly what I’m talking about. This guy is obviously a Hezbollah collaborator. He’s trying to manipulate the media into showing how Israel is killing “civilians” for no reason. His hospital was used as a site to launch rockets. Guess where these rockets land? In Israeli civilian centers! GAH! He’s helping Hezbollah try to kill innocent Israelis, by launching rockets from a hospital.

Also, the article indicates that the Lebanese Red Cross found rocket launcher shreds (in or surrounding… I can’t tell) the area of Qana. I’ll do a search later for that in the NY Times, etc.

I’m rambling and going off-topic now, but I’m just so angry. Hezbollah’s actions are just so obvious to me! Why would CNN let Hezbollah direct one of their segments? Are they that stupid? Are they being intimidated? Or is something more sinister happening? A combination? None of the above?

I do know one thing. Hezbollah is murdering Israelis, launching rockets only into civilian centers, and is using the Lebanese people as human shields. That’s disgusting. If you’re producing Hezbollah propaganda… I’m not even going to finish that thought.

Another concurring voice in the “this is not the end of the world for Democrats” category: Michael Tomasky on Slate. He notes that there are 8 Democratic Senate incumbents up for reelection who voted for the war in Iraq. Only one, Lieberman, has faced a serious challenge. One, Tomasky says, is not a trend. I agree.

Prediction: Conventional Wisdom will soon shift to this camp. There will also be a downplaying of the role of the liberal blogosphere. (Note: If this prediction is wrong, I will completely ignore the fact that I made this prediction. If this prediction is right, expect me to loudly trumpet that I was right and link to the offending headline.)

UPDATE: Then again, to add flames to the fire, I found this statistic from Rasmussen Reports very interesting: “Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.”

Everyone is… okay, some people who are interested in politics are… all atwitter at the loss of Joe Lieberman. (I think the SF Chronicle had it as the lead story.) The incumbent senator was defeated in the Democratic primary by Ned Lamont, a political newcomer and anti-war candidate backed by the far-left blogosphere (among other supporters). What does this mean for Democrats? What does this mean for elections in the future? Jacob Weisburg seems to think that it spells doom for the Democratic party, that Connecticut’s embrace of Lamont shows that Democrats are ready to repeat their anti-war obsession with Vietnam, alienate mainstream voters, and ultimately lose elections. Many Republicans are busy spinning it the same way. While I agree that many Democrats do not understand the War on Terror (or, even better, the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism), that’s not what I want to discuss, and I will leave it for a later date.

You know I think? I don’t think Lieberman’s loss is a bellwether of any sort. Weisburg admits Lieberman can be “cloying and sanctimonious.” That’s a perfectly good reason to not vote for him. Besides, here’s an election you probably did not hear about. Another incumbent was knocked off, but it was a Republican candidate. Yet, you don’t see everyone pushing the narrative of the Republicans being forced to the right by crazies.

I feel alone, though. Do you agree? Apparently, Kevin Drum believes the landslide defeat of Cynthia McKinney, who thinks George Bush was behind 9/11, shows that Democrats, in general, haven’t gone over the edge.

I don’t live in Connecticut, so I have no idea why they didn’t vote for Lieberman. Nonetheless, my best guess is that this probably means not that much for the general midterm elections and the next elections in 2008. The liberal blogosphere is not the wave of the future, but just another interest group/constituency that you gotta listen to.

Lloyd, as always, makes an interesting point, so I’ve decided to quote his comment in full from my last entry:

It’s clear that the end result of CNN’s broadcast has been pro-Hezbollah propaganda. However, the real question in terms of the very serious claim of treason is: did CNN willfully and premeditatedly produce the spot?

If the other media outfits (NBC, CBS, the euros) ended up conveying pretty much the same propaganda, the claim of treason is much less a slam-dunk than you make it out to be.

This is much more directly interpreted as a brilliant piece of media manipulation by Hezbollah than an outright act of treason by a given media outlet.

None of which should surprise you, or anyone else. In the war of ideas, the so-called ‘objective’ media are as much weapons as anything else–wittingly or otherwise.

Has CNN willingly and premeditatedly produced the spot? I don’t think that the CNN, as an organization, told their correspondents to go in and produce Hezbollah propaganda.

Here’s a good piece if you want more information: CNN’s Robertson Now Admits: Hezbollah ‘Had Control’ of His Anti-Israel Piece. (A decidedly biased source, but it has lots of quotes from the primary source.) I think it’s interesting that Hezbollah is providing guided tours of the area and the media is falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Or are they? They can’t be that dumb… I mean, the CNN correspondent did later admit that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Yet, from what I gathered from the piece online, it didn’t seem as if any of that was explicitly communicated to the viewer. Should the benefit of the doubt be given? Are they that stupid, or is something more sinister going on? Or is there something in between? However, even if mere anti-Israel bias is translating into pure Hezbollah propaganda, I think someone should be held accountable. Hezbollah has done almost nothing but lob missiles into civilian areas. My eyes are open for more propaganda.

And here’s some more: Reuters admits altering Beirut photo. A photographer photoshopped an image of Beirut to make it look more damaged. Then, the plot thickens: “Adnan Hajj, the photographer who sent the altered image, was also the Reuters photographer behind many of the images from Qana — which have also been the subject of suspicions for being staged.”

There you go. More Hezbollah propaganda, and there’s no doubt this is just the tip of the iceburg. That photo is why I think that the media is more than unwitting dupes. Is there an anti-Israel bias? Probably. Do they want the state of Israel wiped of the map? Probably not, I hope. But they are directly enabling those who want to murder Israeli civilians until the state of Israel is no more. I’ll back off my claim of treason, but they’re treading dangerous waters.

I was re-reading my entry from yesterday, Beyond Bias, looking for some sign of overreaction. Instincts told me that I must’ve not seen something. But nope, upon re-reading the entry, I don’t see any reason to update my opinion — unless the quotes attributed to Nic Robertson turn out to be fake, of course, but that appears highly unlikely. My accusation still stands: CNN has done something traitorous, namely, producing propaganda for Hezbollah.

It is true that CNN has produced propaganda for Hezbollah, unless those quotes are false. I understand if you take issue with my assessment of treason, but I can’t see it any other way. Why would you let a terrorist organization direct your cameras? What else can you call it but treason when someone makes propaganda for a group that killed 241 American servicemen on October 23, 1983?

How can you tell the difference between a Hezbollah fighter and a civilian? I’ve always wondered how the civilian counts were ascertained in Lebanon when Hezbollah terrorists don’t wear uniforms. Looks like I’ve found the answer: Certain segments of the media simply take the word of Hezbollah.

Normally, this type of statement could be characterized as a right wing Pavlovian foaming at the mouth upon hearing the word media. However, in this case, the accusation is — very unfortunately — absolutely true. Lately, I’ve been loathe to criticize the media since I feel that a lot of the “proof” of media bias is the product of cherry-picking. This disturbing article, The media aims its missiles, has forced me to speak out and to call a spade a spade: Certain segments of the media have turned into propaganda arms of Hezbollah and their Islamofascist allies. (Note: Link found via Sullivan.)

Wait a second! This is from the Jerusalem Post. How do we know it’s not propaganda from the other side? Well, let us ignore the framing and look at the irrefutable facts. Following are two paragraphs from the article, which I’ve highlighted in blue:

CNN “senior international correspondent” Nic Robertson admitted that his anti-Israel report from Beirut on July 18 about civilian casualties in Lebanon, was stage-managed from start to finish by Hizbullah. He revealed that his story was heavily influenced by Hizbullah’s “press officer” and that Hizbullah has “very, very sophisticated and slick media operations.”

When pressed a few days later about his reporting on the CNN program “Reliable Sources,” Robertson acknowledged that Hizbullah militants had instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film. Hizbullah “had control of the situation,” Robertson said. “They designated the places that we went to, and we certainly didn’t have time to go into the houses or lift up the rubble to see what was underneath.”

There’s no way to spin this. Hezbollah “instructed the CNN camera team where and what to film” and that’s a fact. When you allow a terrorist organization to direct your news footage (and present it as objective news), it is no longer media bias: It is propaganda.

In the second page of the article, a quote from Robertson confirms my suspicions about civilian casualties in Lebanon: “We didn’t have enough time to see if perhaps there was somebody there who was, you know, a taxi driver by day, and a Hizbullah fighter by night.”

Even more disturbing is that the article reveals that the problem is not limited to CNN: “NBC’s Richard Engel, CBS’s Elizabeth Palmer, and a host of European and other networks, were also taken around the damaged areas by Hizbullah minders. Palmer commented on her report that ‘Hizbullah is also determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see.'”

How determined is Hezbollah? Physical intimidation is part of their modus operandi: “[Hezbollah] has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.” Yet, instead of fighting for the truth, it appears that the media has acquiesced to Hezbollah.

I must take this one step further. This isn’t merely propaganda against Israel. Before 9/11, Hezbollah held the distinction of being the terrorist organization that had killed the most Americans. Hezbollah is not only Israel’s enemy, but America’s enemy. When you get right down to it, CNN and its ilk is producing propaganda for the enemy. There is only one word for it: Treason.

It is not with glee that I report these traitorous activities. For me, the extent of this is very surprising and extremely disturbing. I don’t want to call CNN treasonous, but their activities have forced me to. Treason is not a word one should toss around lightly and I have only used it very reluctantly.

If we do happen to find ourselves in WWIII, I predict that China and Russia will be fighting against the US. I’m willing to put money on it. I’ll remind you of these events: Painting a Web of Anti-American Alliances. I wrote that back in April and it seems even more relevant at this point in time.

In 2008, we need to put aside politics and elect a man who can lead us militarily.

Also, it would be nice to have closer ties with Brazil, which is already an ethanol-based economy. We can’t fight a war without oil. How long will that strategic reserve last? If we do have a wider war, Hugo Chavez may try to pull something down there.

Now, I’m not saying we will enter a wider war. However, we should do everything we can to prepare in case that wretched day comes — because if it does come, it will come sooner than any of us will imagine.

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.

Starting with the replacement of Andrew Card with Joshua Bolten, we’ve seen a few changes of the White House staff. Today, Treasury Secretary John Snow was replaced by Henry Paulson. Or rather, Paulson has been nominated to replace him, but it doesn’t look like there will be strong opposition to the chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs.

[more to come later today]

All the ads for offices in California crack me up. Every single candidate is going to “make corporations pay their fair share.” The phrase is so hackneyed now. Everyone is also for the environment and education. Their overwhelming focus on big business bogeymen really reminds me how liberal this state is.

I’m also loving the Westley and Angelides attack ads. Yes, chew each other up… better for Schwarzenegger.

I’m thinking about running for office too in California. I’ll run my own 15 second ad: “Shawn McDonald… He’s for good things… and he’ll fight against the bad.” I think that sums up about everything you need to know about a politician and leaves you informed enough to vote.

It’s really hard to argue against a national health care system. You can say all you want about bankrupting the nation, you can say all you want about government inefficiency, but it’s really hard to argue that people shouldn’t have health care. Now I understand what it must feel like when someone tries to argue with me about Iraq and I get lazy and turn it solely into an issue of genocide. It’s really hard to argue against me because I’ll just paint you as not caring about genocide. The nuance disappears. Likewise, I feel like I’m arguing that poor people should die. Arguing against a national health care system isn’t very palatable. Frankly, it’s a losing issue. When I really think about it, the question, “Why shouldn’t everyone have some minimum level of health care?” doesn’t have a satisfactory answer. So, I think we should — have a national health care system, that is.

Woah there, you may say, aren’t I abandoning my conservative principles? Hey, who says the issues have to line up this way? There’s no rule that says Democrats are for national health care and Republicans aren’t. I’m against boxing the party in on losing issues, and this surely is a winner for the Democrats.

My opinion, as a Republican, is that we should steal this issue from right out under the noses of the Democrats. How can I do this? Well, listen to me:

“We want health care for everyone, but we want to make sure it’s done in a fiscally responsible way. If the Democrats institute a plan for national health care, they will dramatically raise your taxes in order to pay for it. They will radically alter the system, bringing about all sorts of new problems. These new problems, in turn, require more money to identify and solve, which means… raising taxes again. The Democrats will give you a socialist plan for health care that will put everything in the hands of the government, which will result in inefficiency and the deterioration of our great medical institutions. To those who say a national health care will bankrupt America, you’re right, if you decide to go the route the Democrats wish to go. A socialist health care system will hurt doctors and hurt you. We want a moderate route that will leave everyone covered, but not radically alter our current system. Health care will not be provided by the government, but subsidized by the government. Everyone deserves health care, but only we will deliver it in a way that will not waste your tax dollars.”

Do you see what I’m doing there? The first rule of propaganda is: Define your enemy before he defines you. The health care issue isn’t at the forefront of things at this moment. We’ve got immigration, Iraq, and gas prices. Soon, though, this issue will grow. Gas prices got people angry because they were so high. The cost of health care is rising as well. Not only individuals, but businesses will press for government action as well. If the Republicans don’t act, they will be painted as the people who don’t care about your health, the ones who want poor people to get sick and die. With my way, the Democrats are painted as socialists who will raise your taxes, while Republicans will extend coverage to everyone without need of revolution. Whether this is a correct portrayal of Democrats has no meaning at this moment, since I am only concentrating on the issue of packaging. The portrayal is pointing to the Democratic Party leadership, and tries to bring swing voters, including centrist Democrats to vote for Republican candidates. It’s just a rhetorical exercise at this moment. Policy will come later.

And Republicans can court the corporate side: “Moreover, the rising cost of health care is hurting businesses. Instead of paying you better wages, they have to put more and more money into health care. We want a system that is friendly to capitalism.”

Believe me, businesses are starting to feel the pinch of rising health care costs. It is in their best interest to push this burden onto the government. Republicans can’t afford to lose their backing. On all fronts, this is a losing issue if Republicans continue their current course. I have offered a way out that remains true to core conservative principles.

With Bush’s dismal approval ratings, it is extremely likely that the Democrats will take the Senate and/or the House. This statistic from the NY Times stopped me dead in my tracks: “The [negative] reaction [to the $100 gas rebate] comes as the rising price of gasoline has put the public in a volatile mood and as polls show that cynicism about Congress is at its highest level since 1994.” If you don’t know your recent history, 1994 is when the GOP gained majorities in Congress from the Dems. We could be seeing a stunning replay of history, only this time in reverse. The Republicans have coasted on the ineptness of the Democrats for a while, but where Cindy Sheehan (remember her?) and Katrina failed, the Dubai Ports Deal, high spending, and immigration have just destroyed the base’s trust in the party. It’s not enough to hope the Democrats will mess things up again. Indeed, some parts of the Democratic Party are figuring out how to get back on track. Nancy Pelosi, though, is excluded from this contingent. Maybe the Kos crowd wants to impeach Bush, but the nation doesn’t want another presidential witchhunt. Still, Karl Rove’s probable strategy of scaring the base into voting because of this is not going to be enough. They need the reassurance of specific conservative policies.

I do, however, have a sure-fire way to keep the GOP in the majority. It’s an easy plan. Immigration and ANWR. The Senate’s plan for amnesty is going to make the base, which is extremely riled up about this issue, sit home on election day and not vote. The GOP needs its base more than ever. Furthermore, tough immigration policy will grab swing voters and centrist Democrats. The second thing making Americans angry is high gas prices. The gas rebate was a stupid idea. If you want something that will grab people’s attention, say you’re going to drill ANWR. We all love the environment, but most Americans are willing to sacrifice a frozen wasteland in order to get some more oil. Call for alternative energy too, but drilling ANWR will draw a distinction between Republicans and Democrats that will play out in favor for the right.

I also have a plan for the Democrats: Don’t listen to Nancy Pelosi. Just don’t say anything stupid regarding national security because the Republicans aren’t likely to seriously push for those two issues I outlined earlier. Bush loves illegal immigrants and he is the party, so you probably don’t have to worry too much about that issue. Be warned: A mistake on national security will cost you the election just as it did in 2004. Instead, sit back and enjoy the show — namely, the coming implosion of the GOP.

[Note: This originally appeared on myspace.]

[I wrote this on the airplane and have only made a few minor edits.]

George Bush has been catching a lot of flak lately. I find that whenever one makes sweeping generalizations, it is best to back it up with a personal anecdote. At my last JHU College Republicans meeting, before the president of our club had showed up, one of the high-ranking members posed this question: “Does W suck?” The general consensus seemed to be a reluctant (or perhaps not-so-reluctant) “yes.” Mind you, this is the core of the College Republicans. I don’t think we’re alone, or else Bush wouldn’t be enjoying a 37% approval rating. After a lackluster State of the Union address, Republicans seem to be disillusioned.

I wouldn’t be saying this if I wasn’t experiencing some level of disillusionment myself. I’m disappointed with the situation in Iraq. I’m disappointed with the situation with Iran. And I’ll throw in North Korea too, just to round out the Axis of Evil. I’m disappointed with Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I’m disappointed with the wiretapping. Yep, folks, I’m disappointed overall with how the War on Terror is going.

Yet, let us take a closer look at this War on Terror. It is come to my attention that there are some problems in defining this war. We’ve got Glenn Reynolds, celebrated right-wing blogger, saying on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show: “Terrorism is an information war disguised as a military conflict.” I must strongly disagree. I hate to play the 9/11 card and play off emotions, but it is necessary. I hardly think 3000 dead constitutes some kind of mirage of violent conflict.

See that? That’s not some disguise. That’s an attack on the American people. As I’ve said before, 9/11 was an overt act of war. It’s disappointing that a lot of people don’t understand that. John Kerry, the former presidential candidate, wanted to turn this war into a law enforcement issue. You fight a war with soldiers, not policemen. You’re not going to destroy any terrorist camps that way. Thomas Friedman implores that we not let 9/11 define us. Should we have cried, “We will not let Pearl Harbor define us?” Wait, before you cry “false dichotomy,” hear me out. The point I want to make is that we’ll never win this war by playing defense, by trivializing this conflict, or ignoring it. We need to get off our asses and fight. Ladies and gentlemen, the barbarians have sacked Rome, and we seem content to fiddle with our remote controls while the nation burns.

There’s only one person in power who seems to realize that we’re at war: George W. Bush. That’s why we reelected him in 2004. Despite the flaws and disappointments, he’s the only one who realizes that 9/11 did change everything. One can rightfully make a case that he has gone too far in some instances, in extending presidential power, but I say better too much than too little. Some may argue with my reasoning. They may say, “Yes, Bush recognizes that there is a war, but he’s gone about it wrong. He may have the best intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Yes, it is true that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However: Apathy Avenue is a quicker road to hell than Good Intentions Way. Good Intentions may lead us to hell, but it is a circuitous route, and we have many opportunities to right ourselves. In the grips of apathy, there is no destination but Self-Destruction.

In fact, let me state in plain terms what has been said earlier: I agree that George W. Bush has extended his executive powers too far. Thus, I wish Congress would grow a backbone and curtail these abuses of power. As a conservative who distrusts big government of all type, and as a liberal, in the classic sense, who wishes to guard against tyranny, I think this is of the utmost importance. However, Congress must do so in a responsible manner. The problem is that I don’t trust Congress to do so. I don’t think Congress recognizes that we’re at war. I don’t think Congress recognizes that whether it should have happened or not, Iraq is a front in the War on Terror. If we lose in Iraq, that will cause more to flock to Osama’s cause than 10 Abu Ghraib’s could cause.

I don’t trust Congress to fight the War on Terror; I trust George W. Bush. Even though he’s made some errors, at least he knows that there’s a war going on. Everyone else seems content to think that 9/11 never happened. I believe this quote from Bush is apt: “Time and distance from the events of September the 11th will not make us safer unless we act on its lessons.” George Bush also made the right and just decision to invade Afghanistan. I wonder if any Democrat would have done so. I wonder if certain Republicans would have done so. That’s why I still support our president.

I will continue to criticize him, but make no mistake, I still support him. If you are a wavering Republican, I urge you to reconsider your stance regarding Bush. If you are a Democrat who voted for him in 2004, I urge you to think of why you voted for him in the first place.

I did some more thought-experimenting, and I have decided to ditch the “pro-reality” phraseology. My propagandous utterings need to be more subtle. No really, there’s something off with the phrasing. It happens when you start to confuse reality with practicality. That’s when a whole can of worms gets opened, and I’m not pro-can of worms. (For people who think you’re pro-can of worms, no you’re not because I’m not referring to real worms, I’m referring to metaphoric worms.) Note: This does not mean that I’m now anti-reality.