January 30, 2005


I am watching live coverage of the Iraqi election right now. It started at 11 pm (Eastern standard time) earlier tonight and is now into its fourth hour or so. As Usual with big news events I switch from the two major cable news channels. The one with ratings and the other one. It's time's like this I am reminded why I don't watch CNN too much (like many others apparently). I just saw a series of reports meant to focus on the negative. I could tell that the anchors (who had been hyping up the violence factor) were stunned and dissapointed to hear a rather candid Christiane Amanpour delivering a downright positive and upbeat report implying that the overall story is not the moderate violence but the elation and excitement of the Iraqi people. After getting shot down by a very professorial Iraqi cabinet advisor, whose intensity dwarfed the foolish desire to focus on the violence, the two obviously agenda driven, news anchors finnally found what they wanted; a sort of exaggerated and alarmist reporter practically trying to terrorize voters himself with his report of, considering the importance of this day, minor incidents thus far. That same reporter right now is interviewing a random passer-by Iraqi voter and asking; "Aren't you scared that you'll be killed because someone will see the ink on your index finger signifying that you voted?". I could tell that he was dissapointed when he was met with yet another excuberant and defiant Iraqi saying that he is not scared and saying several times passionately "We want to get rid of every sign of the Saddam Government!" And for those who might imagine that Fox News does not somehow tell the whole story I can tell you categorically that every piece of newsworthy information is presented there. Everyone knows that there will be viloence, but CNN's rather obvoious desire to focus in on that as the main story is disgusting and reminds me why CNN SUX.

January 29, 2005

The Eve Of Elections

American forces are digging in. Sniper teams are in place. Surveillance cameras are monitoring and recording. A night time curfew and a ban all driving has been enacted. Elite Iraqi Forces are digging in. Many of their brethren have already been gunned down in a most cowardly manner and they're making this thier fight, equipped with the latest armaments, tactics, and body armor that America has to offer. Polling places have become veritable fortresses. Three Top Enemy Lieutenants have been quietly captured. Refugee and immigrated Iraqi's have already voted across the World.

I Can't imagine the mentality of someone willing to give thier life to vote. There are many Iraqi's who feel that way. I also can't imagine the mentality of someone who would wish that these elections do not go well. I Know that there are those here in this country, forget foriegn terrorists, who secretly hope that these elections do not go well. I Suppose, the reasoning being (if you can call it reasoning): "I dislike this administration/Bush so much that I hope the violence continues and that the elections in Iraq don't go well". Ted Kennedy, for example, secretly hopes the elections go horribly and, in which case, his argument that Iraq "Is a quagmire" and "Is George Bush's Vietnam" will be vindicated. This mentality is unacceptable. Just look at the lead story on (the left leaning) New York Times.com. "Shi'ite Faction Ready to Shun Sunday's Elections In Iraq" Wow, what a surprise, more doom and gloom from the left. Focus on and accentuate the negative. I find this, as their lead story, deeply offensive. It's this sort of rank partisanship that turns centrists like me off to the Democratic party, and it's the reason they lost the race for the oval office. Not Iraq, not 9/11, not the Swift-boat vets, but this transparent and self-serving mentality of hoping things don't go well for America because their guy is not in office. Their obstructionism in congress and a demonstrable paucity of ideas to replace the ones they shoot down are not becoming.

Anyone reading this better hope that the Iraqi elections go well. Do not do so would be Un-American. You can join the ranks of the blame-America first crowd. And perhaps worse, you are allowing vanity or pride to get in the way of what is the best for America, Iraq, and The World.

January 25, 2005


In the latest Featured Survey offered up by the Pew Research Center(A left-leaning organization, if anything) It is revealed that only 17 percent of Kerry voters believe that "Military Force is the best way to defeat terrorism". I'm not sure what measures the majority of Kerry voters would recommend (or at least approve of) for dealing with the bullies, thugs, and murderers that comprise the enemy. On the question of: Should America "be active in world affairs" or should "we concentrate on problems at home" the results of Bush voters vs. Kerry voters are inversly proportional. Most Bush voters want to be active in world affairs as opposed to concentrating on problems at home. And for Kerry voters, the reverse is true. This brings to mind, what has almost become almost a cliche by now, "Having a pre-9/11 mentality". No wonder Liberals have had such adverse reactions to The President's ambitious and bold vision of the world presented in the Inaugural Address. Most people wish we could "concentrate on problems at home", but guess what. We tried that. In the Clinton 90's we tried to leave the world to their own devices and ignored certain festering problems and looming international crises. After 9/11, I thought at least, We all had realized America needed to adopt a more pro-active role on the International scene, but if you believe this Pew Survey (Which I do) an alarming amount of us still believe we can go on sticking our heads in the proverbial sand.

January 19, 2005

January 13, 2005

A Strategy for Howard Dean

Howard Dean has officially thrown his hat into the ring in the race for Chairman Of the Democratic Party. News Link This is an important position, especially now. I admire Dean's passion and gusto. So far he seems like the most interesting choice for DNC chair. Now he needs a strategy. Not only a strategy to win this particular position, but a strategy for the Democratic Party as a whole. The strategy he should use is called "Triangulation". Triangulation is a brilliant, perhaps ethically challenged political strategy designed to appeal to the maximum amount of voters. I believe this strategy was first observed in action/invented by former Clinton Advisor now turned right wing pundit, the brilliant Dick Morris. Clinton used the strategy of triangulation to great effect. In simple terms: Triangulation is simply adopting some if not all of your opponent’s platforms and positions, thereby taking away glaring differences and, in turn appealing to the maximum possible number of voters. It is, essentially, being all things to all voters. But there are problems with this. Democrats and Republicans represent values at either end of the political spectrum. One party feels that their policies would benefit the country and that the other party's ideas would be detrimental and vice versa. Triangulation, I suppose, relies on the "grey area" between strict party lines. This strategy was a big part of the reason Clinton served for eight years.

There is another president that won eight years in the white house due to his team's use of Triangulation. His name is George W. Bush. Karl Rove Brilliantly used triangulation to get Bush re-elected in what seemed to be an impossible situation (for them). As a result of this "being all things to all voters" approach what we have is a supposedly conservative administration that has increased the size of government and spent its way into a deficit. We are prosecuting a war while spending mucho cash on social programs. We are ramping up homeland security efforts while at the same time allowing mass unchecked immigration. Triangulation begets contradictions. But it also begets results. And it's results that Howard Dean needs. As governor of Vermont he was a reasonably conservative democrat. Then, in his presidential bid he became very liberal. If he could possibly tone down some of his liberal/Bush-bashing rhetoric he might be able to slowly morph into a more viable candidate by using Triangulation (or at least a form of it). If, on the other hand, he and his party remain on the far left (ideologically) or continue focusing on demonizing the other party and its candidates as a primary strategy they will continue to lose elections I'm afraid.