Pull our troops out of Iraq?

I'm increasingly hearing talk about pulling our troops out of Iraq. Forget what Bush has done to deceive and lie his way into this horrible situation - the reality is that our troops are the only thing holding Iraq back from total chaos. If we left right now, here are things that WOULD happen.

1. Saddam and his loyalists would try to reassert his power.
2. Shi'ites would organize a resistance and a civil war would break out.
3. With the US gone, Iran would most certainly intervene on the side of the Shi'a.
4. Would Syria (run by Ba'thists) stay on the sideline of a civil war in neighboring Iraq?
5. Would Israel get involved? Probably, if we left (again, leaving right now is so ridiculous that its hard to even argue these hypotheticals)
6. The Kurds would revolt and form their own government (Kurds in Eastern Turkey would most certainly rebel, and Turkish troops would certainly enter the country (shortly after killing thousands of Kurds within their borders).
7. Iraq would be burnt to the ground after a year of fighting, and terrorists would have themselves a fertile breeding ground.

It's not simply enough to say, "well, Bush created this mess" as a response to my points. That's not the issue anymore. We can take that up with him when we elect a Democrat in 2004. In Iraq, however, there is a real opportunity to create a stable democracy. If Democrats put themselves on the sidelines of this debate by angrily proclaiming "bring our troops home" them we will have no say in the rebuilding of Iraq, and it will indeed fail. Liberals, of course, are the best nation builders.

I know that it is depressing, and I also know that we have a daunting task ahead of us. Can we rebuild a country and create a fairly stable democracy? Honestly, I doubt it. But what are our other options right now? When someone gives me a sensible suggestion besides, "bring our troops home," then I'll listen.

Remember this?

Remember when Bush used Mount Rushmore as a backdrop and right-wingers proclaimed him likely to be the next president on Rushmore?

All of this is quite comical now that Bush's approval ratings are below 50 and his reelection chances are dwindling.

George Will on the Recall

This George Will column is satisfying to read for those of us who are bitter about Arnold's win.

Exams, papers, thesis proposals

These are the things that are occupying my time right now, so I haven't been able to post on the blog lately. My fall break begins tomorrow, so I'll be able to weigh in on Arnold/Wilsongate/Clark etc. then. I'm also planning on continuing my analysis of the political parties, including a real assessment of whether there really was a New Democrat movement.

Odds and ends -

-I was pumped up Sunday when I received an email response from Joe Conason saying he'd publish the link and mention the PIPA study that I featured about a week ago. He told me he'd "almost certainly" post it. Oh well, it's been a busy week - would have been sweet though.

-David Anderson (my twin brother) is now my editor. It was about time someone stepped in and put a halt to the trainwreck that is my grammar and sentence structure. In all fairness to myself, I post these things on the fly. In the future, I'm going to try to do better.

Will the 11th hour revelations about Arnold's sexual impropriety create a repeat of the Bush-DUI effect?

Remember all of those polls out November of 2000 that said that Bush's DUI wouldn't affect the outcome of the election? Well, Bush's numbers swung 5 percentage points during the last few days of the campaign, and for precisely that reason.

I think the same thing could happen to Arnold. No matter what voters say publicly about these revelations, they will definitely have an effect on outcome of this election. Bustamante will gain many Arnold supporters.

Unfortunately, I still believe that Arnold will gain quite a few McClintock supporters come election day. Faced with the choice of throwing their vote away or seeing more years of Democratic rule, right-wingers who support McClintock will flock to Arnold. That's the way I see it right now.

The question is - who will turn out? Most pundits have predicted heavy Republican turnout and moderate Democrat turnout. Personally, I think we're going to have heavy turnout on both sides.

Sidebars:
Will McClintock supporters even bother to turnout? That's going to be interesting.
How much does Huffington leaving the race boost Bustamante?
How long will it take to decide the outcome of this race, and if Gray Davis is clearly a lame duck during that period (he loses the recall, but the second part of the ballot is still up in the air) what does he do?

The Economy is in the toilet?

That's the common refrain from the left AND the mainstream media these days. Is it really true? No, of course not. We have ample growth (not enough in itself), and unemployment isn't really that high - and it's stabilizing. There isn't a poverty crisis or a health care crisis (problems remain in each of these realms, but there isn't a crisis). And yet, the familiar refrain from media elites is that the economy is performing poorly. The stock market is relatively stable, if not growing, and GDP is growing at a semi-healthy 3% rate. What's all of the fuss about? I have to admit that it pleases me to have Bush smeared, but some of the smearing is unfair. It's still possible (according to Paul Krugman) that we will see another economic downturn come Christmas time, but I'm not so sure. I think Bush may have the economy on his side come reelection time, but I don't think it will really matter. Did it matter for Al Gore?

Another thing worth considering: If the media can make this mild recession look like a huge downturn, can't they make a mild upturn look like a huge rebound? Think about it - if the job market improves a bit by next year, will the media start running stories about the "booming economy"? I think they will. This will be a huge boost to Bush, who will claim that his tax cuts reversed the downturn (when in fact, most of those tax cuts aren't even in effect yet, and the ones that are (like the dividend taxes and tax cuts on the upper class) will stimulate the economy over the LONG RUN, not the short run.

Graham is out - who does this help?

Ok, I admit it, that headline was a joke.
Here's the AP release on Graham's decision to quit the race - Graham Ends Presidential Campaign

Actually, I am quite surprised that Graham performed so poorly. He was originally touted as the only experienced Southerner in the race. If "electability" is the standard that we're using for a large part, the Graham should have moved himself into contention. He simply ran a horrible campaign and lacked the charisma to move voters into his camp.

So the field is down 9. Here is my ranking of candidates right now -

1. Clark
2. Dean
3. Kerry
4. Edwards
5. Gephardt
6. Lieberman

Of these candidates, only Clark, Dean, and Kerry have a realistic chance at seizing the nomination. In fact, Lieberman should step out of the race. Edwards should stay and further position himself for the Vice Presidency (a strong primary showing would help). Gephardt should leave - but no one expects him to leave until after he loses in Iowa.

Another argument for Dean at TNR

TNR issues another strongly worded argument for Dean on the etc. blog. They are using the familiar strain of argument that I have also used - that, in the red vs blue era, any credible Democrat can mount a strong campaign against Bush. What I believe, however, is that some Democrats have a slightly better chance than others. The New Republic cites these strengths for Dean -

1. Dean will motivate the hard core party loyalists and other liberals who haven't participated recently to come back to the polls and vote for Democrats. For example, Nader has said that he would probably not run if Kucinich or Dean win the nomination (insert snicker). In the Red/Blue era, one theory is that motivating your base is more important than going for swing votes. The 2002 midterm election is supposed to be evidence towards that theory.
2. Dean is in a good position to contend in gun toting southern states (something I've also suggested before).

Here's my analysis of each of these assertions:
1. I'm skeptical. Besides Georgia, nothing was really surprising about the 2002 midterm election. The Republicans just happened to win a few close races - not much really can be made of it. Democrats picked up seats in Arkansas and held their seats in tight contests in South Dakota and Louisiana. The Republicans' slim win in 2002 was mainly the result of luck (with the exception of Georgia, where a masterful, albeit deceitful, campaign gave the race to the Republicans). I don't think Nader or any other credible Green Party candidate is going to run in 2004. I also think that EVEN IF a more moderate candidate, like Clark, wins the nomination, he will take great care not to alienate liberal activists, especially since Clark has no history of "corporate cronyism" like Clinton and Gore did (or whatever other nonsense far lefties harp about to no avail).

2. The problem is - which issue will be more salient? Dean's support of gun rights, or Dean's unequivocal support of civil unions? It's a tough call to make - but I personally think Nascar dads aren't going to go running to the socially liberal Dean just because he supports gun owners rights. Let's face it - gays make Nascar dads uncomfortable. And while it IS likely that Democrats will retake West Virginia in 2004, Dean is the major candidate who is LEAST likely to accomplish that feat.

Listen - it's not going to be that hard to win in 2004 if things stay the same as they are today or even if they get a bit better. Put Bill Richardson on the ticket, and New Mexico, Nevada, and possibly Arizona fall into your lap. Florida comes back into play. No money need be spent on California.

Put Clark on the ticket and not only will you erase several decades of perceived Democratic weakness on foreign policy, but give the world a real chance for peace. They said it took Nixon to go to China, well I think it'll take a General to come up with peaceful diplomatic solutions to the problems that are on the horizon (the inevitable confrontation between the US and Korea, the US and Iran, and further terrorist attacks).

I like Dean. But this idea that "it took courage" for him to attack the President when no one else was attacking him is a farce. Dean was an unemployed governor trailing badly in the polls with nothing to lose and everything to gain by functioning as an attack dog against anything and everything the President proposed. Unfortunately, the realities of governing precluded Democrats in congress from being as stern with their criticism of Bush. I admit that I wish Democrats had been a bit more aggressive, but let's remember that the Republicans were masterfully exploiting 9-11 and tarring and feathering anyone who dared stand in their way (Remember the ad in Georgia where Max Cleeland was compared to Osama Bin Laden?). The important thing is that the Democrats are back, and they're on the attack again.

Stop sidestepping the real issue - A CIA agent was outed

Talking Points Memo, as usual, has the best coverage of the Wilsongate scandal.

Friedman is a loon

So far Start Here has voiced it's disdain for NyTimes columnists Bob Herbert, William Saffire (also a loon) and David Brooks. But it's time to include Thomas Friedman in the prestigious list of foolish Times columnists. It's not that Friedman's twice weekly column isn't always entertaining. It's just that it's entertaining for the wrong reasons. Friedman's columns are a pretentious exercise in overoptimism, overspeculation, and preaching.

Take Sunday's, for example. Friedman proposes a one dollar per gallon gasoline tax. According to Friedman, this tax would accomplish the following -

1. Anger OPEC because oil consumption would fall
2. Provide revenue with which to rebuild Iraq
3. Increase conservation (It could be Bush's alternative to Kyoto that we've all been waiting for on the edges of our seats)

I'm going to add my own points 4 and 5 to this list.

4. Destroy a limping US economy by imposing a crippling REGRESSIVE tax on a substance with an incredibly low elasticity of demand (if the price goes up, the corresponding decrease in demand is not substantial).
5. Cause massive amounts of inflation (think about it - most goods are shipped using trucks - costs would skyrocket causing prices to inevitably go up in the short run). Friedman does mention some relief for truckers... but how much? Total relief? Even a small tax of that sort is hardly a healthy thing.

Friedman admits in his column that this gas tax will never happen. He also inserts his trademark blurb about the post war effort - "we need to successfully partner with Iraqis to create a free, open and progressive model in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world to promote the ideas of tolerance, pluralism and democratization". It's always something like that, and it's always randomly inserted into columns where it doesn't really belong. Start Here is going to make a habit of pointing out Friedman's lunacy for the next few weeks, so if you read a suspect column by him, check here for my reaction. Friedman doesn't really have many fans on the left (the political zone he supposedly inhabits - I think it's closer to La-La Land). We all remember his unwavering support of the war and condescending criticism of those who supported it with qualifications (this blogger) and those who completely opposed it.

Trouble for Blair

More trouble for Blair. One of his former Cabinet members, Robin Cook, has written a book based on his diary entrees in the months leading up to the conflict in Iraq. He makes some brash accertions that Blair will probably deny.

1. Blair knew AND believed that Iraq was not a credible threat to the British Isles. He admitted this privately to Cook and others.
2. Blair's main reason for joining the war was to maintain a firm alliance with America. Blair believed that it would be much more difficult to face an angry US President than it would be to face an angry British public. (In other words, Blair is Bush's poodle).

Excerpts appear in the London Sunday Times, which unfortunately is not free online. However, the AP picked up the story, and you can read it here in the New York Times.

Partial-birth abortion ban passed in House Thursday

A ban on partial-birth abortions was passed in the House of Representatives Thursday. It will most certainly pass in the Senate, and the president will sign it into law before it is unceremoniously dumped by the Supreme Court. Here's why:

First of all, partial birth abortions are generally defined as any abortion where any part of the baby is outside of the vaginal walls of the woman.

In Stenberg vs. Carhart, the Supreme Court ruled that a Nebraska law outlawing partial birth abortions (1) put an undue burden on women trying to get abortions (a critical albeit vague litmus test used by the Supreme Court) (2) jeopardized the health of women seeking abortions and (3) made some abortions performed in the second trimester illegal.

Many abortions that are performed in the second trimester are partial birth because today's prevailing medical opinion is that it is safer to perform abortions in this manner. The woman's life would not necessarily be in jeopardy if the abortion were performed otherwise, but HER HEALTH would be in jeopardy. That is what partial birth abortion bills do - they ignore women's HEALTH issues. In fact, as the Supreme Court decided in Stenberg vs Carhart, a women's health trumps the life of the unborn in importance. If a woman chooses to have a second term abortion, it is sometimes invaluable to her health to have it performed as a "partial birth abortion".

In all fairness, the procedure is gruesome - but I don't think you'll find anyone who'd argue that any abortions are anything less than gruesome. But, let's hypothetically assume that partial birth abortions are much more grotesque than most abortions. Should we not outlaw other grotesque procedures? Colonoscopies are rather disgusting. Let's outlaw them. Come to think of it, any procedure where the icky insides of a human body are exposed really should be outlawed.

This analogy is stretching it a bit, I'll admit. But there's no denying that it is precisely the grotesqueness of this operation that makes it a politically viable point of attack for pro-life activists.

Great Kurtz column

Howard Kurtz had a great column in Sunday's Washington Post.

This paragraph sums up the way I feel about journalists' recent conduct -

"It's a tough question for journalists," said Columbia's Lemann. "I see why not revealing a source is very powerfully in your personal professional interest. But why is it also in the public interest?"

Many argue that protecting sources helps the media function. Without the ability to protect anonymous sources, the media could not investigate as effectively because many people would be afraid to come forward with information. I agree with this point, but I'd like to qualify it.

Journalists, including Robert Novak, are arguing that if they reveal the source of this leak, people would be hesitant to trust journalists and give information in the future. I disagree. People would not be hesitant to give information anonymously, they'd be hesitant to ILLEGALLY OUT A CIA AGENT AND THEREBY COMMIT A FELONY. The leak itself - the act of it - is a crime. I think journalists should protect anonymous sources who are obeying the law (or at least attempting to obey). But it is actually IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST for journalists to give away the name of every anonymous source that intentionally breaks the law. If a source is planning to commit a crime, the journalist should report it. If the source knows information of an imminent threat towards national security, then the source should be identified to the FBI. And of course, if the source is trying to out an undercover CIA agent, he or she should be reported to the Justice Department immediately. There is just no merit in encouraging and shielding these kinds of leaks.

State of the parties

In the next week, I'm going to take a look at the current state of the political parties in America. This week I'm going to start with the GOP's move towards the center on social policy-

Overall the GOP is very strong right now. They have moderated their socially conservative and out of touch positions (let's call them the politically incorrect positions like anti-gay rights, pro-prayer in schools, etc.). Let's remember that as recently as 1996 Republicans voted against the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA). ENDA was a very watered down bill that nevertheless protected gays from discrimination in non-military and religious workplace discrimination. Today, I doubt Republicans could protest a gay-rights bill with such a furor. President Bush talks about being inclusive of gays and not discriminating against them. Mary Madalin said on Crossfire before the 2000 election that there would be no place in the Republican platform for bigotry against gays. The issue of gay rights is an excellent example of how far Republicans have come recently.

That's not to say that they've moved their party THAT far to the center (socially), but it certainly has moved. The difference is mostly cosmetic, of course. Behind closed doors, most Republicans will be just as ideologically conservative today as they were in the mid 90s. They will not attempt the amount of PUBLIC social conservatism that they have attempted in the past.

George W Bush actually did something similary to Clinton in 2000 when he ran as a "compassionate conservative". As much as we mock that monicker, it's senseless to ignore its significance. I think many voters were indeed turned on by that phrase, especially middle class soccer moms. Had Bush run as a traditional conservative in 2000, I believe he would have been trounced by Al Gore. The kind of racial coding, gay bating, and pooh-poohing of popular culture that his father engaged in would not have played well with today's electorate.

The Republican Party lost its way in the late 90s. Impeachment ended the Gingrich Revolution, and party insiders realized that they needed to put forward a more passive, civil face to the American voter. Along came Dennis Hastert, the calm uncontroversial Speaker of the House. Lately the trend amongst Republicans has been to exercise restaint nationally while remaining ideologically conservative in state and local governments.

Israel attacks Syria

Israel attacked a Syrian terror training camp today. It's unclear whether they connected with their intended target and if any people were killed. This is supposedly the first time Israel has attacked Syria in 30 years, and would mark a HUGE escalation in Israel's already hawkish stance against terrorism. I think Israel crossed the line here by a long shot. If they expect to receive aid from the US then one of the conditions for that aid is that they allow us to protect them from foreign powers (whether through military or diplomatic means). The idea of Israel independently attacking other Middle Eastern nations is somewhat frightening.