On that note

Look what we're up against in 2004. The RNC is running an ad in Iowa that pretty much sums up the Bush strategy in 2004 - "Democrats hate America."

Stop-Dean?

For the last few weeks, I've been seriously considering starting a Stop-Dean movement. I haven't commented on it on the blog because I've just been toying with the idea. I am 100% sure that unless a video of Bush murdering someone surfaces he will not lose to Howard Dean in 2004. No one in their right mind will vote for a middle class tax increase, and they really shouldn't. Certainly I would vote for Dean over Bush. But he has no chance in the general election.

Right now Dean has the nomination locked up. He has major union endorsements and the lead in Iowa and New Hampshire. Sure, he can't win in the South, but does it really matter? The rest of the candidates will split the vote up those other states. Dean is a sure thing as of right now.

That's why we have to stop him. We must keep Dean from getting the Democratic nomination. We must organize and stop Bush from being reelected. This means nominating a moderate Presidential candidate. A Stop-Dean movement would encourage candidates with no chance (Edwards and Lieberman) to exit the race. With Gephardt out after Iowa and Kerry out after New Hampshire, the race would come down to Clark vs Dean. Yes, I am basically endorsing Clark here. He is moderate enough to win over independents and anti-war enough to hold the Greens in place. Dean must be stopped.

Please email me with your comments on this subject. I understand that Dean has made an emotional connection to many people already. People become very defensive when I attack him.

Slain soldiers

In an oddly insulting move today, George Bush visited the families of dead BRITISH soldiers.

Of course, America soliders aren't even allowed to be photographed coming home.

Children of the Middle East

I'm reading/reviewing a book on Women and Political Liberalization in the Middle East. The book focuses on the states of Morocco, Jordan, and Tunisia.

According to the book, women have progressed from being legally murdered without punishment (for example, if they commit adultery) towards some basic political rights (although so-called "honor killings" are largely still legal).

Arabs treat women appallingly similar to children. Yes, I'm judging from a "western" prospective, but I maintain the Arab world seems remarkably similar to 18th century America in its progress on women's rights. We cannot simply sit back under the cover of "respecting other cultures" and allow this mistreatment to continue.

This post is directed towards those who say we need to stop thrusting western ideas and changes upon the Middle East. In fact, we need to continue. Much of the progress made in Jordan is due to US agencies intervening on behalf of women. Progress in Morocco owes itself to pressures from the EU. I admit that this is an elitist opinion, but I'm probably an elitist, so expect that from me.

Implicit in my elitist argument - that the US, particularly Paul Anderson, knows better than the people of Jordan, or Iran, or Egypt or whereever. It sounds extreme, but ask yourself: Should women be treated like children, dogs, or something worse? Should the US stand by while Arabs continue to virtually enslave 50% of their population?

Argument against Dean/Gephardt

"I will not balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in America, and I will not raise taxes on the middle class."

-John Kerry

That's right - it ends up that balancing the budget by raising taxes on the middle class is NOT a popular idea. And yet Dean and Gephardt feature it as a centerpiece of their campaign.

More Clark video

This guy is impressing me more and more every time I see him. Here is another video of Clark explaining his role in the War in the Balkans.

If you'll remember, I called his campaign a "joke" a couple of weeks ago. Well, it was. But this week he has impressed me with his aggressive media campaign and his articulate answers to questions.

Clark earns my vote

For those of you who are tired of mealy mouthed Democrats, watch this Fox News interview of General Wesley Clark before they take it off the site.

What the???

According to the independent (a left-leaning British daily), the US will soon bring the UN, NATO, or the EU into Iraq and cede some control. Or at least that's what I think the article says. It's a confusing and poorly written article.

Here are some key paragraphs:

The United States accepts that to avoid humiliating failure in Iraq it needs to bring its forces quickly under international control and speed the handover of power, Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, has said. Decisions along these lines will be made in the "coming days", Mr Solana told The Independent.

The comments, signaling a major policy shift by the US, precede President George Bush's state visit this week to London, during which he and Tony Blair will discuss an exit strategy for forces in Iraq.



Solana implies that he knows something the rest of us do not.

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, arrives in Brussels tonight for talks with EU ministers, which he will combine with a meeting with the retiring Nato secretary general, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen. Diplomats say that Mr Powell is expected to "test the water" about the involvement of the transatlantic alliance in Iraq.

What are the Independent's sources? Who told them that Colin Powell wants to "test the water".

America's chief post-war administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, also suggested that US-led forces would remain on a different basis. "Our presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence," he said. "I'm sure the Iraqi government is going to want to have coalition forces here for its own security for some time."

Who is Bremer kidding? What delusional world are these people living in? The Iraqis will "want to have coalition forces here for its own security"? What Iraqi official is going to announce to his people after acquiring power that he "wants the Americans to stay for some time"? How many hours would it take for said leader to be assassinated after uttering that statement?

If things get AWFUL

If things do become AWFUL in Iraq (and I mean that with all of the might that capital letters imply) then I predict the Right will start spewing this rhetoric:

"Look at these Democrats. They criticize the war, but they supported it in the beginning. They can't have it both ways. They are equally responsible for this mess."

The Republicans will try to deflect criticism that will be aimed at Bush towards Congressional Democrats.

I don't like the strategy because it ignores the complexities of:

1. Congressional Democrats' votes. I'm sure that a few of them voted for the war resolution in November out of fear, but most of them voted for it (Hillary Clinton included) because they wanted to show the UN that the US was unified in its resolve to deal with Saddam Hussein (whether the method be inspectors, bombing, or war).

2. The way the war played out - Remember Daschle's brave statements in March after Bush declared that Saddam's time was up? Just because the Democrats were on board for the November vote does not mean that they should be held accountable.

Vietnam was similar. There wasn't much partisan divide over whether to support the war (although the anti-war movement was supported by the Democrats and not the Republicans). Even so, it was unclear to the American electorate which party was anti-war (especially since Nixon claimed to be an anti-war candidate).

I think some of this explains the failure of Bush's approval ratings to really dip down like one would expect them to. Many Americans see the Democratic Party as opportunistically attacking Bush and backing away from their "support" for the war.

Iowa Political Stock Market

The Iowa Political Stock Market puts out contracts on different political events and sells stocks. Think of them as "futures" stocks. Right now Dean leads the market with a price around 64 cents. Gephard sells for 10 and Clark sells for 8. Notice Clark's rapid descent down from a high of about 31 when Clark shares were first sold.

I mention this market because it tends to predict with a remarkable amount of accuracy, especially compared to polls and other conventional tools that political scientists employ. For example, it predicted the percentages for the Gore/Bush 2000 election (the market correctly factored in the DUI while most pundits failed to do so). It also forcasted the fall of Bustamante by correctly absorbing the implications of his disasterous debate performance.

Interestingly enough, the market has a contract out for Hillary Clinton. She's worth about 8 cents.