Outside Report

Have You Seen This Man?

2009-06-23T08:36:00.002-04:00

Dude..Where's My Governor!

Funny Photo

2009-06-15T16:51:00.004-04:00

After looking at all the pictures of Iran's unrest/revolution, I must say this is one of my favorites. Here is a young girl with a peace sign also holding rocks upon which to throw at the riot police. Of course, the "peace" sign is probably a V for victory sign.

Iran's Elections Part II

2009-06-15T13:05:00.003-04:00

It is certainly possible that President Ahmadinejad won. I suspected he may have more support than we realize in other parts of Iran. However, the notion of him winning by 63% is utterly ridiculous. The problem with mass dictators is that when they cheat, they don't cheat modestly. 51% fine. 49% that's okay too. But 63%!! That's just greedy! In any event, it appears the Iranian government may be backtracking in the hopes of staving off a complete collapse of their government. It appears Iranians are geninuely divided.

Of course I saw Mitt Romney on This Week yesterday and somehow all of this is evidence that Obama's diplomacy is "failing." And now some Republicans are criticizing Obama for not "doing enough" for the Iranians. Um..what? I don't get how people who've got just about everything wrong the last 8 years in terms of foreign policy somehow have a right to criticize Obama on Iran. That stupid Iraq War of ours is the reason that this revolution/outburst has taken so damn long in the first place.

And if my memory fails me, Ahmadinejad came to power during Bush Administration in the first place. There hasn't been this much open debate, strikes, and fights in Tehran and if Bush or McCain had been President, I suspect you wouldn't be seeing this now. In fact, all I remember about McCain's proposed Iranian policy was something called Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran. I thank God for President Bush and that he didn't listen to his lunatic VP who wanted to bomb Iran years ago. Had we done that and they struck back in Iraq, we would've wasted even more blood and treasure, and this potential Iranian uprising would certainly not be happening.

Why would Iranians rise up to the Mullahs when the Mullahs would accuse them of being a puppet for the ruthless American regime? 8 years of bluster, threats, and intimidation come to nothing but a few words of moderation from an American President give the moderates in Iran the leeway to strike back against the religious conservatives who can no longer easily hide behind the cloak of anti-Americanism.

There were signs of cracks as far back as 2000 in Iranian society, but Bush's axis of evil, dead or alive mentality did nothing but strengthen the hands of that lunatic Ahmadinejad. Bush and the Republicans were the best thing Ahmadinejad ever had. Anti-American Western dogma is the stool upon which the Islamic Iranian Republican has stood for decades. You cut away those legs and you've got nothing but 25 year old folks with email, internet, blogs, facebook, and Youtube being ruled by some religious fanatics straight from the 19th century. And BTW, I don't recall Reagan or Bush giving much in terms of overt support to revolutionaries in Eastern Europe either. Why? Because you do that, then it becomes America vs. Iran, America vs. Poland, instead of Iran vs. Iran or Poland vs. Poland. First Lebanon, and now Iran itself may be changing. Hell has frozen over and Katie needs to bar the door when I agree with Bill Kristol! The man actually wrote:

But he is our president. We could be at an historical inflection point in Iran. The nited States may be able to play an important role. The task now is to explain what the Obama administration (and Congress) should be saying and doing, and to urge them to do what they should be doing. Presuming ahead of time that Obama will fail to exercise leadership, and cataloguing this episode pre-emptively as another in a list of Obama failures, would be a mistake. The U.S. has a huge stake in the possible transformation, or at least reformation, of the Iranian regime. If there's some chance of that happening, and some chance of U.S. policy contributing to that outcome, we should hope Obama does the right thing, and urge and pressure him to do so--because then the United States will be doing the right thing, and the United States, and the world, will benefit.

Meanwhile several neocons including Daniel Pipes and Marty Peretz who want to bomb Iran at all costs and need a boogeyman to scare up support back Ahmadinejad lest some form of nuance and rationality emerges! All dem Persians is evil!!! Or something. Geez. What a day when Obama and Kristol stand with a geninue hope of an Iranian revolution and Daniel Pipes et al stand with a Holocaust denier.

Will Iranians Return Ahmadinejad?

2009-06-12T14:25:00.002-04:00

Tommorrow we will find out whether Iran will return Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power (or at least find out who will have the upper hand in a likely run-off). First, I've noticed (and commented in the past on) how elections have taken on global dimensions since the 2004 USA elections. Essentially, people who have no business knowing or talking about the Iranian election all of a sudden have great interest. The fact that I've had rationale, in-depth conversations with my parents not only about the Iranian election but the French election of Sarkozy prior to that, is indicative that politics is "hip" again and the desperately bored media is looking for something (anything) that captures our imagination.

Some have compared the Iranian election to the 2008 US Presidential election with large crowds, huge demonstrations, and lots of political debate. Meh. I get an eerie sense though that this election is not like the 2008 USA elections, but more like the 2004 USA elections. I'd hate to compare former President Bush to the lunatic Ahmadinejad, but I'm seeing parallels in both of their re-election campaigns. As in the United States in 2004, we are seeing in Iran a basically one-sided story of "youth power" and voters fed up. We are only seeing on the news the major cities and urban middle class, but this ignores that the vast majority of Iranians are poor urban and rural dwellers. The world media is latched onto this idea that Ahmadinejad may go down to defeat in the same way they latched onto this notion that Bush would go down to defeat in 2004.

The reason folks like me got Bush's re-election right and the rest of the world got it wrong is because the only thing the world media let you see were Beverly Hills 90210 style youth voters protesting in the streets. But if you only see those protestors, you forget about the millions and millions of others in both Middle America and Middle Iran who are working class, simple, and think that the digs at Ahmadinejad and his decisions are ridiculous. In many ways, Ahmadinejad IS the Bush of Iran (polarizing and overseeing an economic collapse) but he appeals to religious and humble views to get his power from the middle regions of the country.

While some compare Mousavi to Obama, Mousavi is more like John Kerry. He's boring, dull, and his wife is the most exciting part of the ticket. Whereas Obama was new and fresh, Mousavi has been around Iranian politics for a very long time (having served as Prime Minister in the 1980's) just as Kerry was around American politics for a long time. Indeed, Ahmadinejad has basically ignored Mousavi during their debate and focused on attacking Mousavi's wife (she's similarly polarizing as Kerry's wife was). Whereas Ahmedinejad presents himself as a humble servant and teacher, Mousavi is a friggin' painter-artitect who presided over Iran while it was being beaten by the Iraqis in the 1980's.

The other thing when listening to the student street protestors standing up for Moussavi is that they only mention his name in passing. Instead, most of their energy is concentrated on how much they HATE Ahmadinejad. Its a true point that you can't beat someone with no one and that if an election comes down to who you are "for or against" the "for" candidate normally wins. There wasn't enough steam in the anti-Bush movement in 2004 to rally a nation to their cause (it was close) and I suspect there may not be the same among Ahmadinejad haters in Iran.

In recent weeks Moussavi has spread a video of Ahmadinejad discussing how he thought he saw a "light" shine upon him when he spoke before the UN as if it were from God. Moussavi has spread this video to show how "out of touch" Ahmadinejad is, but to simple Iranians with rudimentary religious views, this may be perceived as a dig at them and an attack on a man's religious beliefs. Just as New York, Los Angeles, and California are not even close to the sum of the whole of the United States, Tehran doesn't speak for all of Iran. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but to me, Ahmadinejad may end up winning this thing because of a backlash against the urban elite just as Bush did the same in 2004.

5 Years Of Blogging

2009-06-09T13:00:00.000-04:00

June 8th marked 5 years of this blog's existence. It was started back in 2004 as Emoryspot by Mike who made a short introduction. At the time, I thought it'd be something short and easy to do until the 2004 elections and then I'd quit. In fact, I've been telling myself I'll quit since 2004. But the more I get out, the more "they" pull me back in! Or something. Since then, this blog has captured the fall and rise of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and 3 national elections. In fact, my first blog post posited on the idea of a possible electoral tie in the 2004 race. Given its been five years and over 2000 posts (many of them I'm certain will be major headaches in any confirmation hearing), I decided to pull up my favorite posts from each year except this year.

2004:

Bush '08 or '12 (2004): This post discusses how Bush had come to dominate and control the GOP in a way that no President had controlled a political party since FDR. I fear the same is becoming true of Barack Obama and it will inevitably hurt the party.

The End of the Democratic Party (2004): This post, written in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 election, posits that Barack Obama could save the Democratic Party.

2005:

Lets Get Rid of MLK Day (2005): Arguments as to why this notion of an MLK day is self-defeating and why emphasis should be on a broader picture of the Civil Rights struggle. My disdain though for the day was tempered after reading Taylor Branch's series on the Civil Rights struggle.

Why We Cannot Abandon Iraq (2005): I wrote this and rewrote and defended it for a very long time. And got into a debate with another then blogger about it. It was a long time ago and I gotinto several heated debates, but yes I still stand by it.

Segregated Sundays: What Can be Done (2005): Written about how Sunday is our most segregated day and what can be done to resolve it. I'd blog about this issue again here.

African-Americans and the "Irish" Syndrome (2005): Post showing how African-Americans (as the lowest caste of American society) adopted the very same tendencies of the Irish in the 1800's in terms of their hatred of those who could perceived even lower than tham.

Clarence Thomas, Me, and the End of Gullah Culture (2005): How Clarence Thomas and I come from the same coastal culture of the pre-Civil War era and how that way of life is fading into history.

A Cultural Defense of Urban Sprawl (2005): Detailing the travels of Dr. Luker and I into lynchin' country.

Its Their War Too Mr. Bush, Drop Cheney And Get a Democrat (2005): When Iraq started to fall apart, I felt that Bush needed to reach out to Democrats in similiar fashion as Lincoln did during the Civil War.

Republican 1960's (2005): Written about how the 2000's will likely be deemed the Republican 1960's.

What if the South Had Won? (2005): A look at how things might have played out if the South had won the American Civil War.

Rehnquist's Katrina Connection: The Failure of Federalism (2005): Justice Rehnquist and Hurricane Katrina occured around the same time so I decided to link the two.

Did We Lose the War on Poverty (2005): Vigorous defense of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty backed up with statistics showing shrinkage in poverty in a way we never shrank drug use.

2006:

The 1980's: The Children of Reagan Come of Age (2006): How 1980's culture and values have made a generation that is, in some ways more conservative economically but socially more liberal than their parents.

In Defense of Ted Kennedy (2006): Vigorous defense of Ted Kennedy and his accomplishments vs. Ted Stevens and other Republican Senatorial lifers. While he may be remembered for one event in 1969, the fact is he is the most accomplished Senator sitting in the Senate at the moment and did far more than either of his brothers.

The Forgotten Richard Nixon: His Strong Record on Civil Rights (2006): Detailing Nixon's strong Civil Rights record. While most only remember the caricature of Nixon, he had a stronger Civil Rights pre-1960 than just about any national politician.

World War I: America's Worst Mistake (2006): Argument how World War I was America's worst disaster and how if we had avoided it, its possible there would have been no Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Duke-Durham Rape Scandal: Is It Politics? (2006): This post was one of the very first to expose the political side of the Duke-Durham lacrosse affair when the story first broke. It was linked by many others as evidence of everyone's lingering suspicions. I spent a portion of that month and the next writing about the Duke lacrosse matter and its affect on the Durham community.

Five Reasons to Oppose Flag Burning Amendments (2006): Detailing look at why Amendments against flag burning make no sense.

The First True Iraq War (2006): A historical analysis of the Filipino Rebellion against American rule in the early 1900's and its parallels to the Iraq War. Looking back, it appears that both wars are ended in very similiar fashion.

The Language of Lynching (2006): A vigourous debate with several historians including author of the prominent KC Johnson (who went on to write a well-known book about the case) on whether the use of the word "lynching" to describe what happened with the lacrosse case was warranted. Several compared the fate of these privileged white boys to that of African-Americans in the 1920's and 30's. What they suffered was an injustice, but nobody got hung.

Iraqi Timetable: The Conservative Answer (2006): Though I never particularly supported a withdrawal (particularly when it appeared we were losing) it seemed to me that a timetable was the conservative answer to Iraq. When it came to Welfare reform and most domestic policies, Republicans have always argued that there needs to be a cutoff date but on foreign policy they want to fight and give aid forever.

The Final Battle For Iraq: What Bush Must Do After November (2006): Right prior to the November election, I argued that Bush should reach out to Democrats, fire his top staff, and ask them to stand with him in a final surge of troops to save Iraq. If the surge didn't work, he should pledge to leave Iraq. I think Democrats would have been better off taking my advice on this one.
Getting Off the Obama Express (2006): Though I was on the Obama Express since way back in 2004, I got off following a conversation with someone who told me they'd vote for Obama because he was "articulate" and nothing else. I came to see Obama as something of a lightweight because the only thing he ever talked about at the time was himself and his personal struggles instead of trying to articulate a broader political philosophy.

2007:

How to Blow Your Political Career By Joe Biden (2007): Cute post about Joe Biden entering the Democratic field by slamming all of his opponents and calling Obama "clean and articulate." I thought that was the end of Joe Biden's career. Guess I was wrong to the extent you believe being a Vice President is a career.

Who Should the Candidates Pick Series (2007): This a series I can back in 2007 on who the major Presidential candidates should pick for their VP. I had said Obama should pick a "Regular Joe" and McCain should pick a "Chick."

Will 2008 Be Any Better than 2006 For the Republicans (Jan. 2007): Arguing why, from a historical perspective, Republicans were screwed in 2008.

When The Better Man Lost (2007): Elections where the better political candidate lost the White House.

Learning From Don Imus: The True Joshua Generation (2007): Detailing how President Obama and younger African-Americans were not the David Generation, but instead the Joshua Generation of black leadership in America.

The Confessions of A Former Hillary Hater (2007): So basically, I went from hating Hillary Clinton to loving her to hating her all over again. This marked a very brief period in my life when I was a Hillary Clinton supporter.

How Obama Can Still Win: Three Easy Steps (2007): There was a period when Hillary Clinton looked so inevitable that people were already picking out her Cabinet. Not me. In this post, I write how Obama still had a "shot" at winning but would need a little luck and a few endorsements.

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton: Chill Out (2007): I had written in December 2007 when Obama had been surging ahead thanks to Hillary's debate gaffe that if she was going to win she had to keep her wits about her and not be overcome with rage at Obama. She wouldn't listen. Neither would McCain. Hillary's underestimation would cost her.

2008:

Obama's Super Duper Strategy And Beyond (2008): I predicted that if Obama survived Super Duper Tuesday then he'd win.

My Apology to Hillary Supporters (2008): I had written some unkind stuff about Hillary and this an atonement and understanding of "her side" of the story.

The Senator President: Get Use To it (2008): Detailing how Senators are the future and how Governors won't be the automatic shoo-ins for Presidential nominations that they use to be.

Had Lincoln Lived? (2008): Series on what would have happened had Abraham Lincoln lived.

Who Knew The Most Presidents (2008): Discussion of which President knew the most Presidents and which person may have met or seen the most Presidents.

The South Rose Again But Where? (2008): Discussion of how the antebellum South existed in both Liberia and Brazil.

On Presidents and Vice Presidents (2008): I further articulated this in The Problem With the Lloyd Bensten Model. This basically says that a President had to be careful not to overcompensate for a weakness and therefore look worse for it.

Muslim: The New American Nigger (2008): Discussion of how this irrational hatred of Muslims made no sense.

Poll Gazing: Comparing 2004 and 2008 State Polling (2008): This was by far one of my crazier posts. Basically, I went through one night and compared all the state polling from 2004 with all the state polling of 2008 and showed how Obama was doing significantly better than Kerry at that point in the campaign.

Obama: Another John F. Kennedy (2008): How Obama is the true heir of John F. Kennedy. For good and ill. Part II is here.

The Most Fascinating and Unknown Ways Leaders Met Their End (2008): A detailed look at how world leaders lived and died.

Obama + McCain = Colin Powell? (2008): Analysis of how Colin Powell is a mixture of John McCain and Barack Obama.

How McCain Turned Obama White (2008): Discussion of how McCain's erratic campaign turned an exotic and alien Obama into a downright normal guy.

Top Ten Most Exciting Presidential Races (2008): A look at the most exciting Presidential races in American history and why 2008 should be in that list

Looking Across the River Jordan (2008): On the eve of the election, Barack Obama lost his grandmother. This is a look at her, her life, and how ordinary individuals like her were important in the overall struggle for Civil Rights.

Reckless Hyperbole Watch

2009-06-09T09:50:00.003-04:00

Frank Gaffney from the Washington Times:

This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.

Yes, Obama embracing his Islamic roots for political and social gain is as "consequential" as Hitler "fooling" Neville Chamberlain about Munich. Sigh. So is Obama the new Hitler or the new Neville Chamberlain? I can't tell.

When A Nasty Election Is Actually Good News

2009-06-08T11:20:00.002-04:00

Despite what you probably hear from the media about Iran, they actually do have elections. Though the Ayatollah has ultimate control over decisions, Iranian politicians such as their President do have significant control over some forms of domestic policy. Even more concrete , the President can change the tone of the country in its relations with the Western world. Its interesting that we criticize Iran's pseudo democracy but seem mum on the outright dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and our other buddies.

In any event, Iranian elections have been marked by low turnout because while most would likely back reformist candidates, most were disappointed by former President Khatami's lack of vision in pushing for real change. The low turnout among young Iranians led to the election of Holocaust-denying nutjob Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This Friday, Iranian voters will cast their verdict on whether they think the past four years under Ahmadinejad has been good or not. Former President Khatami had been making noises about running but opted not to run in order to give the reformist candidates a marginally united front. When Khatami bowed out, most assumed Ahmadinejad was a shoo in for re-election.

The only marginal challenger to his re-election was the reformist candidate and former Prime Minister, Hussein Moussavi. Most polls (Iranian polls are notoriously unreliable) showed Ahmadinejad way ahead. However, something happened: The race turned surprisingly nasty. Though usually when elections turn nasty, they have a habit of depressing turnout, the exact opposite seems to be true in Iran. During Presidential debates between Moussavi and Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad went hard against Moussavi including this scene captured by the New York Times:

But the most shocking thrust, to some viewers, was when he held up a document with a small picture of Mr. Moussavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard, and asked him in a derisive tone, “Do you know this woman?” Mr. Ahmadinejad then accused Ms. Rahnavard — a respected professor of political science — of entering a graduate program without taking the entrance exam and other, lesser violations of university policy.

This moment is likely a watershed one in Iranian political history with candidates openly attacking one another in a harsh way unscene since the days of the Shah. Think about that for a moment. As democratic and free as our country is, can you imagine John McCain or Barack Obama during a live Presidential debate attacking the spouse of their opponent? Can you imagine any Presidential candidate doing so? This incident caught the immediate interest of the entire populace and likely will push moderate Iranian voters who had been indifferent to actually side with the more moderate Moussavi.

Its also given Moussavi more leeway to attack Ahmadinejad over his Holocaust denying and bluster. The attacks by Ahmadinejad on Moussavi's wife has also struck a raw nerve among women voters who may flock to the polls in record numbers. If Ahmadinejad were to somehow lose this Friday coupled with the election defeat of Iranian/Syrian backed Hezbollah by a pro-Western party in Lebanon could signal real changes in the Middle East. Obama will instantly work with Moussavi and Lebanon in securing peace. Ironically, its in Benjamin Netanyhu's interest (though not necessarily in Israel's) that Ahmadinejad wins re-election. No Ahmadinejad means Obama will really put the screws on Israel and their settlements in the West Bank.

Good News for New Orleans!

2009-06-08T11:17:00.001-04:00

Mayor Ray Nagin has been quarantined in China. This is the first concrete step the Mayor has taken to get his city back on track. Now if only we can get a few other politicians to fly on planes with those carrying the swine flu, we'll be okay!

A Pirate Party! Arrr!

2009-06-08T11:13:00.002-04:00

The Pirates ride again! This time in Sweden. A political organization dubbing itself the "Pirate" Party has won a seat in the European Parliament. They aren't the type of pirates (I think) you are thinking of though. This party supports online privacy and attacks the government's right to become involved in restricting file sharing. Europe continues drifting rightward as left-wing parties got shellacked. It also appears Britain's Prime Minister is done for.

Airplane Vanishes

2009-06-05T10:52:00.002-04:00

This is getting more and more bizarre. All that debris they found for that missing Air France jet turn out to be not at all connected to the plane. According to both the Brazilian and French government, they are back to square one. I feel absolutely awful for these people. I cannot even imagine the hell it must be not knowing where your loved one is. Just missing. I'm fairly surprised at the lack of any conspiracy theories though. How close is this thing to the Bermuda triangle?

Maybe he IS the Anti-Christ?

2009-06-04T17:10:00.006-04:00

Whie touring Egypt, Obama came across this ancient hieroglyphic symbol of a man's head with big ears. As Rush Limbaugh would say, even the ancient Egyptians tried to warn us about the evil Obama. Or is that Will Smith? I can't tell them apart really. I'm far more interested though in what precisely is the context of the hieroglyhic symbol? Does it err..say that this big eared guy was great or is he going to destroy the world? Justt curriousss :-)

Sperm-Based Facial

2009-06-03T19:02:00.002-04:00

New York Mag. had a discussion about the newest craze: Sperm-based facial treatment for anti-aging purposes. Um....mmm.. My snark sensors are going into overload here, but since this is a family blog (except for my cursing) I'll let you fill in your own jokes.

Where is Osama Bin Laden?

2009-06-03T12:33:00.003-04:00

Seriously, how is it possible that these Al Qaeda guys can release audio and videotapes time and time again. I mean, can't we just follow (via satellite or something) all the places where he releases tapes or videos? Can't we get someone into Al Jazerra to give up their source? I mean come on CIA!

Obama: Bush's Fourth Term?

2009-06-02T02:00:00.000-04:00

When historians go back and analyze the Bush Presidency, I think its important for them to view Bush's legacy not through the prism of two terms, but rather three. The first Bush term lasted from January 2001-September 2001, the second Bush term lasted from September 2001-September 2005, and the third Bush term lasted from September 2005 until January 2009. The first Bush term, an unremarkable period during which Bush focused on domestic issues such as education and taxes, can largely be viewed as a mixture of Reagan's second term and Bush I's first term. Bush's pyschological second term, which arose from the smouldering wreck of 9/11 and ended in the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, marked a period of conservative hubris and patriotism run amok.

Bush's psychological and ideological third term though can be deemed a period of redemption. Not only did the Bush Administration embrace the bank bailouts, but it pushed for closing Guantanomo, and paying far more attention to Afghanistan. He fired Don Rumsfeld and essentially embraced a Condi Rice style foreign policy (to the anger of Dick Cheney's hardnosed attitudes). Whereas had Israel approached Bush in his "second" term about bombing Iran, he would have likely said yes, by the time of Bush's "third" term, he was unwilling to embrace anything but diplomacy. For all of President Obama's bluster about changing the path from Bush, inevitably (whether it was voluntary or not), Obama's first term is shaping up to be much like Bush's third term.

On the most pressing matters today such as banking, deficit spending, and foreign policy, Obama has not strayed as far from Bush as one would have imagined. On Africa, Obama has taken Bush's position that AIDS relief should be paramount and he's given credence to the view that Tanzania is the new African powerhouse. On China, Obama has coddled and prodded along the same lines of Bush in his "third" term. Even on Guantaonomo and torture, Obama's plans to close the military base, end torture, and have military tribunals hasn't strayed that far from Bush's third term. While Obama has "ended" torture, he still, as President, reserves himself the right to torture in extraordinary circumstances (which isn't much different than Bush's third term position).

Indeed, McCain and several Bushites have overtly or covertly endorsed Obama's plans in Afghanistan, Iraq, and much of the Middle East. Think about that. Iraq was suppose to the issue that overwhelmingly divided us, yet McCain et al back Obama because Obama has largely transformed his foreign policy apparatus into Bush's third term. Gone are the days of "we're leaving Iraq within X amount of time" and now Obama has adopted Bush's target goals. Even on Bush's tax cuts, Obama has been squeamish to let them fade as quickly as he promised during the campaign. On free trade, Obama has quickly fallen in line with Bush's mentality. Much of the GOP anger at Obama (from Rush to Dick Cheney) may well be Republican anger at not being able to tell their opinions about Bush during Bush's third term.

Both Bush third term and Obama's first recognize that the federal government is a large, complex, mechanism that must keep America functional. This isn't to say that Obama's first term is horrible or that Bush's third term was great, but its a muddled mixture and it demonstrates how the Presidency and this country are evolving. So why is Obama so wedded to Bush's third term? Here are a few thoughts:

(1) Levithan lives: The federal government has essentially become so large and overwhelming that no one President has control over it. Despite Bush and Obama's protestations of difference and ideology, there is very little they can do given the budgetary straightjacket that was and is on the Presidency (there isn't much to cut outside of military expenditures, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid). As the federal government grows bigger and more involved in all aspects of our very lives, neither party will be able to offer more than comestic rather than substantive change.

2) Its Still Early: Many Democrats derided Kennedy's Presidency as nothing more than Eisenhower's third term. It takes some time (some more than others) for Presidents to get off the ground and establish themselves as their own men. Bush didn't become his own man until September 11th; Kennedy likely didn't until his speech embracing Civil Rights, or Lincoln until the Confederates declared war in April 1861. Some Presidents though never come into their own (Jimmy Carter being nothing more than Gerald Ford's second term). Either through crisis or on his own, Obama will either come into his own or he'll be a one-termer.

(3) Disaster Brings Governmental Evolution: For all the vitrol aimed at Herbert Hoover, he essentially expanded the government beyond anything that any of his predecessors did. The transition from Hoover to FDR (though then seemed large), in historial hindsight, was a natural transformation and transition responding to the needs of the public. Hoover laid the groundwork for much of what FDR would do in expanding the government. Similiarly, Carter laid the groundwork for much of Reagan's militarism in the 1980's (crazy as it sounds, Carter ramped up military spending and heavily involved us in the Afghanistan war). In that way, Bush has paved the way for Obama.

Where Are We Going?

2009-06-01T10:29:00.003-04:00

Rush Limbaugh:

How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people or even saying you do, or that they're not good or put 'em down, whatever...make white people the new oppressed minority and they're going right along with it because they're shutting up. They're moving to the back of the bus and I can't use that drinking fountain, okay. I can't use that restroom, okay.

As Ta-Nehisi points out, this type of rhetoric can only end badly for all of us. The idea of someone who believes in life shooting down a doctor in front of his wife on Sunday in a church is appalling and disgusting. Whatever our political differences, this country is going down a dangerous path. Both sides of the political spectrum are playing with fire with the likes of Glenn Beck accusing the President of being a fascist and we have to "take our country back" from a dictatorship and Democrats who want to throw the former Commander in Chief in prison. Common lines of decency are shedding and the threads that hold us as are one are fading. Our country is in the middle of a great economic collapse from which we may never recover. Its leaving people scared, angry, and desperate.

People are being confronted with sights and sounds unimaginable in their respective lifetimes (a black liberal President, a Hispanic Supreme Court justice, economic turmoil at home, weakness abroad). I had written once that Barack Obama is the most targeted man in the world. And that has not changed. But he's also the most loved man in the world (whether you will admit or not). If those who believe that America as they know it is on the verge of collapse and they were to strike at our President, then I think this country will descend into a madness and violence unseen in generation. While many see President Obama as the last straw for those who would destroy us, many see him as the last stand of that which will save us. Break that straw or kick that stand (whichever side you are on) and a chain reaction of hate will explode across this nation. Both the straw and the stand are unhealthy, but in a world where reality is fear, people grasp at whatever they can find.

Abortion Doctor Murdered

2009-06-01T08:08:00.002-04:00

An abortion doctor was shot and killed while in church services. I don't know why, but this incident makes me frightened for our country and I fear that it maybe one of the many heightened murders. My fear is, it'll spiral into uncharted and dangerous territory for our nation.

We Don't Want Your Children

2009-05-29T15:35:00.002-04:00

In Philly, a woman claimed that two black men beat her up and kidnapped her daughter. Of course the story was a hoax and the child was found (in all places) Disney World. I don't get this. There have been like 4 or 5 national stories of white women claiming that their children were kidnapped by a black man and all of em were hoaxes. I'm perplexed people even take these stories seriously. Look, black guys don't want your kids. Black guys don't want their own kids! None of their kids! They will run when they see their kids on the street! They will hide in their mom's house. They will put on fake mustaches. If they are running like that guy from the Fugitive to avoid their own kids, why the hell would they want yours lady? Ugh.

Alternative History: Bill Clinton, the Resignation Or The Judgment?

2009-05-27T14:00:00.001-04:00

As part of our alternative history series, I've already done alternative histories for President Obama and the George W. Bush. Now lets turn to some potential alternative histories for Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas for more than ten years and before that, served as the state's Attorney General. He was our nation's 42nd President and only our second President impeached. Lets take a look at how he would have shaped America had history changed.

Bill Clinton Loses To Bush in 1988

Bill Clinton ran for Congress in 1974 but lost in a close race to Republican Congressman John Hammerschmidt. Bill Clinton also ran for re-election for Governor after his first-term but lost in 1981 to Republican Frank White. Had he won either election though, its likely Clinton would have felt comfortable enough to run for President in 1988 instead of waiting for 1992. How wouuld an election against Bush in 1988 instead of 1992 turn out? My guess is Bill Clinton's sexual indisrections would have come to the fore and been vigorously used by Bush Sr. His draft dodging and moral failings would have mattered more in 1988 than in 1992 and he likely would have gone down to defeat and perceived as a horny Jimmy Carter.

Bill Clinton Resigns in 1998

During the dark days of August 1998, Bill Clinton admitted to America that he had an "inappropriate physical relationship" with Monica Lewinsky. For more than a year, this story gripped the United States starting when Bill Clinton wagged his finger in our collective faces and said "he did not have sexual relations..with ..that..woman." Though its now pretty forgotten, at the time, there was a real question as to whether the President was going to resign. Many in the media conjectured that a group of wise Democrats were going to march up to the White House and tell President Clinton that he had no choice but to resign. That collective never formed and Bill Clinton decided to stay and fight rather than resign. However, lets say that Clinton's fears got the better of him and in 1998, he decided to resign as President effective at noon the next day? What would have happened to him and what would America look like?

Well for one, Al Gore would have been sworn in as our 43rd President in August 1998. Given the domestic troubles and wanting to step out of Clinton's shadows, I can forsee Gore basically refusing to pardon Clinton and focusing almost all of his attention on foreign policy. A President Gore would have likely picked Lieberman as his VP in 1998 for the same reasons Lieberman was his VP in 2000 (to atone for Clinton's sins). A President Gore in the wake in Clinton's resignation, would focus on the Arab-Israeli peace (though he likely would have failed just as Clinton did) and probably a tougher line against Saddam's Iraq. Given Bill Clinton's resignation, its likely that plenty would have held on to their initial hard feelings toward Clinton and punished Gore a few months later in the 1998 midterm elections.

The elections likely would have strengthened the hands of the Congressional Republicans and forced Gore to retreat even further into foreign policy while essentially ceding domestic policy (for the most part) to the Republicans. Gore's primary problems in the 2000 Presidential race was that he just ran out of time. If Gore had another week to get his campaign act together and allowed the press an earlier time to beat on him, he likely would've beaten Bush. Basically, the media spent most of their time beating up on Gore and suddenly in th final months of the campaign that got old so they beat up on Bush. With a good two years of media attacks within the alternative reality, Gore could have finessed his campaign and allowed the media to focus a lot more quickly on Bush's weaknesses.

Unlike Ford who cost himself the election by pardoning Nixon, Gore would have allowed Clinton to stew and gotten himself re-elected. Gore likely would have won Ohio (given the relatively strong state of the economy and an ability to claim some ownership over the economy) and more importantly Gore would have had a much better shot at winning his home state, Tennessee. It was easier for Tennesseeans to reject Gore as a Vice President than it would have been to reject him as a sitting President. Even Florida might have been a bit easier to win.

In the aftermath of the election, Gore would have been term-limited (I think) from running again in 2004. According to the 22nd Amendment, no President who served more than two years of a President's term can run more than once. If Gore got the Presidency in August 1998, then he would have technically served 3 years of Clinton's term and would be barred from running for President in 2004. Gore's second term initiatives would have likely been his "Social security lockbox", continuing cutting the deficit, and more focus on Iraq and Middle Eastern peace. Democrats likely would have rebounded in 2000 winning back the Senate and closing the gap in the House.

But all of that would have been derailed by September 11th. Ironically, whereas September 11th defined Bush's Presidency (albeit briefly) for good, I think a September 11th on Gore's watch would have been perceived as a Hurricane Katrina style failure. People forget that Gore gave a pretty rambling, incoherent, and generally panned speech in the aftermath of 911 which leads credence to this notion that Gore wouldn't have been able to rally the nation the same way Bush did. Republicans likely would have made strong Congressional gains in 2002 and likely rallied around John McCain in 2004.

Gore would have likely focused on minimal Afghanistan operations to try to capture or kill Bin Laden (it would have worked) and Republicans would use the failure to capture Bin Laden or tame Saddam as evidence that the Democrats were too weak on defense. Needing a defense oriented team, I could see Republicans turning to John McCain with the two term Jeb Bush as their VP choice. McCain/Bush would defeat Lieberman/Edwards. In the meantime, Bill Clinton would have spent this time writing books, redeeming his Presidency, and pushing his wife to be the nominee in 2008 (some things never change).

Bill Clinton Never Actually Had Sex With That Woman

What if President Clinton had used good judgment and didn't bother having sex with *that* woman? I actually don't think this timeline would have altered all that much. Basically, Republicans were so hellbent on ruining this guys life that had it not been Monica, it would have been Whitewater, or Travelgate, or some other issue.

Just as its likely Republicans were too intent on kicking out Clinton, its likely Clinton was too likely to be huburistic and not to get himself into trouble anyway. But this timeline would likely have seen impeachment less likely and Clinton likely would have focused his second term on securing Middle East peace and likely stronger saber rattling against Iraq and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Governors No Longer The Future

2009-05-27T10:00:00.000-04:00

Huntsman decision to leave the Governorship of Utah makes him the fourth this year to leave (or plot to leave) their job for greener pastures (Florida, Arizona, and Kansas being the others). The governors of several other states may be up for leaving as well. While my argument was pooh-poohed around here, it seems to prove my earlier point that Senators and others are the future and not Governors.

The Sight

2009-05-26T14:00:00.001-04:00

I swear, my optics can't handle all this change. The idea of seeing a black President appoint an Hispanic female to the Supreme Court. Its so surreal.

Obama Picks Sonia Sotomayor For Supreme Court

2009-05-26T09:38:00.002-04:00

CNN and MSNBC reports that President Obama has picked Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor for David Souter's old seat. If this ends up being true, it will be surprising to some who felt that Obama would likely pick someone slightly more on the moderate to centrist side. There was also a perception that Sotomayor would be passed over after Jeff Rosen's blistering article on her. Sotomayor is essentially a Scalia Liberal Latina who will be a powerful and active voice against John Roberts and the conservative elements on the court.

Obama likely would have gone with someone less liberal and abrasive had not Republicans not sent messages that they'd attack Obama no matter who he picked. Obama basically said, "screw it, if you are going to attack my pick, I'm going to give you a darn good reason to attack my pick." This pick also puts the Republicans in a bit of a bind. Are they really going to go all hardcore against the potentially first Hispanic justice and only third Supreme Court female?

Liberty U. Bans Democratic Party

2009-05-22T14:27:00.003-04:00

Wow..now this is something I'd expect from Yale or Harvard, but never a school with the name "Liberty" in its title.

Cheney v. Obama is Really Cheney vs. Bush/Obama

2009-05-22T11:08:00.002-04:00

The media dubbed Thursday Cheney vs. Obama, but the reality is a lot more complex than that. As David Brooks astutely lays out, this really was Cheney vs. Obama/Bush. Brooks argues that in reality, Dick Cheney only really got his way for about three years but after 2005-2006, the Bush Administration (led by Condi Rice) pushed a more nuanced foreign policy on all issues, including terrorism.

Cheney refuses to acknowledge though that much of his arguments against Obama are really arguments against Bush just as Obama refuses to acknowledge that this job is a lot harder than he had campaigned on and that Bush deserves credit for laying the groundwork for much of what Obama's foreign policy is on Guantanomo and torture.

Terrorists In our Backyard?

2009-05-22T09:49:00.002-04:00

An interesting argument against closing Guantanomo is that we can't allow to have the terrorists on our soil. The reasons are (1) no one would want them; (2) the cities would be a target for terrorists; and (3) the terrorists might "radicalize" the other inmates. None of these arguments make any sense.

First off, America already holds several terrorists (many with Al Qaeda ties) in a federal prison in Colorado. Second, plenty of places would love to have the economic stimulus that would come with such a prison. One town (Hardin, MT) has already volunteered and California and New York would probably allow it if only for the stimulus money. Third, how can these guys "radicalize" other inmates when such prisoners would be largely isolated from the other prisoners? Its a security maximum federal prison and in most of these they are isolated or you could isolate them. And really.yah.I'm sure the white supremacists, Hispanic gangs, and black gangs are really going to sit down and chat with Al Qaeda suspects.

Fourth, just how many Al Qaeda plots and attacks have their been on prisons? What would be the point of Al Qaeda targeting a prison? Killing their fellow Jihadists? huh? That makes no sense. Why haven't they already attacked that prison in Colorado then? Why haven't they attacked any prison? And really, I think Al Qaeda has a few other places they might want to hit in the States rather than waste their time trying to help free some idiots who got captured. Al Qaeda, as a recruiting tool, is helped far more by keeping Guantanamo Bay open rather than closing it. As for releasing the prisoners in America, if there case is so strong then that shouldn't be a problem should it? Further, its not like we can't just deport them in the future. In short, I'm not understanding what the problem is here.

Supreme Court Justice Obama?

2009-05-22T09:42:00.003-04:00

Here's an interesting thought. Foreign Policy has an article that argues that Obama is probably the best attorney/legal mind to occupy the White House since William Howard Taft (who went on to be a Supreme Court justice). While I think Nixon, Bill Clinton and FDR would quibble with that, I suppose its true that Obama likely spent more time practicing law and thinking about legal matters (particularly being Law Review editor at Harvard and a constitutional law professor at Chicago) than most of his predecessors who served as attorneys.

Which leaves an interesting question. In 2017 (or 2013), if Obama is largely deemed a successful President, would he accept an appointment to the Supreme Court? He'd still be fairly young by Court standards (only 55-56 in 2017). He likely would never be Chief Justice (given that Roberts will likely have that role for the next 40 years), but I wonder if he'd be willing to sit on the Supreme Court.