Striking Distance

Maybe we can all just get along. No?
We're all so proud of GG Deviant.
Perhaps they both know its nearly over.
One can only hope, really. No kidding.
And yet nothing bad happened. Amazing.

(Photo credit: Reflections Photography)

Must read

Yesterday in the Washington Post, George McGovern had an OpEd entitled Why I Believe Bush Must Go. Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse. It is a piece on the need for impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. It is realistic and argued with the full knowledge of its unlikelihood. However, he calls impeachment's persuit "the rightful course for an American patriot." It will come as no surprise that I agree as evidenced by these entries.

McGovern was before my time and I don't know a great deal about him. My perception has nearly always been that he was a sort of sacred cow of the Democratic Party. When he speaks out on an issue, which appears to be rarely, people do, or should, listen. Hopefully this will be the case and affect action of American patriots.

Primary Season Eve Thinking

So sayeth TPM, Rudy is in free fall. To this, I say hooray. The once front runner is falling from the fore and for good reason. So, if he does bow out, rather, when he bows out, who will he endorse? Moreover, who will his cash and/or backers go to? Its hard to see him getting behind Huckabee or Romney. McCain's tide is coming back in and, as far as Republican candidates go, he's the most tolerable of the bunch. He also seems to be the least distant from Giuliani in terms of core issues. But I could be wrong on that given my proximity to the left.

Anyhow, you still have to consider the Paul haul of cash, Huckabee's popularity w/ the Rapture crowd (which was largely responsible for Bush's success at the polls), Romney's flip-flopping machismo to those GOPers that just want to win for winning's sake and lastly, the oddly dogged Thompson supporters who claim he's the guy for the job because he'd be loyal to the Constitution and he looks the most presidential (whatever that is). In the end, despite what others say, I think the betting person should be placing their money on either McCain or Romney. As to who ends up endorsing who, only time can tell. But its an entertaining speculation for another time.

Hillary is not doing so well. And the way in which she is not doing so well portends of how it might be if she is the nominee, or elected President for that matter. See here and here to see what I am alluding to. Frankly, its worse than watching Rudy and smacks of the Bush '00 and '04 playbook, but softer. Sort of. Meanwhile, Obama is advertising on Drudge and has voted for every funding bill for the Iraq War that has crossed his desk, despite having voted against the War in the first place (as he frequently reminds his audiences). Clearly he walks the politicians' walk in this regard

John Edwards is consistently in third place overall and nearly every one's second choice. He has been a populist for his entire campaign, not to mention is '04 run. The tone of his populism has strengthened as the primaries have drawn closer and now he is saying he'll have the troops out in ten months. While the initial appeal of that promise is alluring, you have to realize that given the size of our forces in the region, to leave Iraq would take ten months in the best and fastest of circumstances. So, like all the other candidates, he's giving the best case scenario. The reality is most assuredly to be starkly different.

Like Michael Moore, I am not endorsing Edwards. I have called him an ideal candidate and consider his poll position to be a vindication of that prediction. I think he is suited for the job and has championed causes that I think are the most important. However, circumstance and the reality of our modern times are stacked against him. Senators Clinton and Obama are the inheritors of that circumstance and the symbolic, reactive progression of history's equation to date.

America wants change desperately. The blunt, obvious antidote to what we've had in our new security age is either a woman or a man of (if partial) minority dissent. To have a brown skinned man be the President of these United States may be the most important and symbolically helpful thing we can do as a nation to send a message to the rest of the world that we can change, definitively. Electing a woman to the office surely wouldn't be harmful in terms of symbolism. It would, in fact be a great achievement in the identity politics of America as a nation, but only inwardly. The world community has had international women leaders before and will continue to.

Now is not Hillary's time. For all her "experience," Hillary Clinton has not demonstrated to this blogger that she can master the helm of a ship that is currently stern deep in threatening and mineable waters. We are a great nation founded on great ideas. Those ideas and this nation need either be served by someone possessing great ideas or able to seize upon the great ideas that will restore what has been so badly tarnished and worn.

Speaking as a Democrat, if Hillary is nominated to run as the Democrat's candidate for President, she'll likely lose. That is if McCain or Romney are the Republican nominee. If Democrats look past nostalgia, baby boomer gender politics and obvious easy choices and really look forward to righting Bush's wrongs and voting for leadership that will steer our national ship of state to safe shores, Edwards or Obama are the better votes.

Update: Freddy T. likely to bow out! Likely to support McCain!. Tick one of the speculation list. Sorry ALa.

On Bloomberg '08

In between feeding and looking after my kid, I pay a mild attention to the news. What I have heard is a great hubbub about is the punditocracy's titillation over New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg's defecting from the Republicans and the potential that brings for his presidential prospects in the 2008 race. Initially I thought little of it. He'll just be another candidate, but without a party. Perhaps another H. Ross Perot but certainly not a Ralph Nader.

Then, during BFD's nap time, I blue skied this a bit more. I have an acquaintance who works within the city government and has known about the Bloomberg '08 potentiality as rumor for some time. As memory serves, she was all for it. That is what drove me to consider it further. And, though it is by no means an endorsement, I am all for it.

Allow me qualify my position. No candidate is ideal. Just consider Bloomberg relative to rest of the field of candidates. Firstly, he's done more for New York than Guilianni did. Rudy may have had to oversee the worst disaster in American history, but Bloomberg had to handle the aftermath and clean-up. In case you hadn't noticed, he's done quite well. I can't say I am pleased with all the things he has done (read: Brooklyn Rail Yards). Gentrification is inevitable as part of an evolving urban landscape. It comes and goes. But, when aided by government policy and backing, moneyed interests always seem to win out and the average city dweller gets shafted some way, some how. So, take this as one big reason Big Mike isn't going to get my rubber stamp.

Being a big business kind of guy, Bloomberg is bound to appeal to the pro-business Republicans. The Christian Right won't be greeting him with open arms, however. So, he effectively splits the GOP. Big Mike has done a great deal to green the Big Apple. His mandate to get all taxis to be hybrids in short order is grand and he's approved many green-space projects for the city. He's also done a great deal to lessen the carbon footprint of New York City by pursuing alternative energies like tidal energy, wind, and solar power. He openly acknowledges the fact of Global Warming. He'll garner a great number of progressive votes with theses notches in his political belt.

Lastly, the most attractive thing about Mike Bloomberg as a candidate for President of the United States is that he could independently finance his entire campaign. Dan Balz of the Washington Post speculated the other night on The News Hour that Bloomberg could spend $500 million of his own cash without breaking a sweat. This is an alluring fact in that it makes Big Mike truly an independent candidate. He would be beholden to no special interest group. Bias, be it progressive or conservative would potentially be solely at his whimsy and not at the behest of some fat cat lobby another candidate might owe the office to. That would be a refreshing change from the examples set in the present administration. (Remember Cheney's Energy Task Force?)

As Mayor, Mike Bloomberg has been a consummate populist. As a business man, he's been a hard nosed executive with a remarkable track record. But as a candidate for the most powerful office in the land, he's not without his faults, depending on where you're coming from. He's not charismatic. Frankly, he's a bit robotic from the times I have seen him speak. Charisma is integral to leadership, for the most part. So, strike one. Strike two will come from the social and religious conservatives. Big Mike has been seen waving the rainbow flag. Personally, its a point in his favor, but have you seen how many red states are out there? As to his actual preference, its been subject to speculation, but it will be an issue despite the fact that it shouldn't be.

At the very least, Bloomberg will make the race for the White House interesting. Like Sharpton in 2000 and 2004, he will be able to bring certain issues into the arena of discussion whereas other more politically entrenched candidates might not. Unlike Sharpton, he'll be a real threat to the candidates from the established parties and, hopefully, keep them somehow honest. Third party candidates have traditionally been a bit of a joke in modern American politics. Not since Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose party staged its upset has anyone mounted a credible threat aside from that of spoiler. Bloomberg is potentially more than spoiler material.

One can argue about national security experience and many other issues to disqualify Bloomberg from contention. However, he's been dealing with the biggest target city in the post 9/11 world. I'd say this is an endorsement of his viability hand over fist compared to Rudy Giuliani. Recall that just recently, reports about Rudy's national security strengths have shown him to be quite other than strong on national security.

At the end of the day, all this presents is another option. Bloomberg, like Obama, has accurately assessed that things are broken in this country and disparately need fixing. The two party system, it can be argued, is not serving this nation well. If it came down to certain candidates winning their party's nomination, Bloomberg might actually get my vote. That is, if he runs.

Edwards Feingold '08 Please

I was surfing about the internets and came upon this post. For a long time now, I have been of the opinion that Edwards, prior to his acceptance of Kerry's vice-presidential slot offer, had a really good message with regards to poverty. I am pleased that, with the exception of the time spent campaigning on the Kerry bandwagon, he's kept it up.

The link mentioned above alludes to The Great Society of the mid 1960s. Currently, the Democrats are all over the place on a great many hugely important issues. While I am a fan of diversity generally, I don't think it is productive when it results in a divisive diaspora within the current Democratic Party. I don't think that the balm to cure the party's woes is to revert to visions of its former self, necessarily. However, the post made me think about periods of America's history where there was a lot of hope and faith in our public leaders.

In my waking memory there aren't any times like that. Clinton's election in 1992 came close, but the partisan divide was present and growing aggressively. People were nuts about Reagan, but he was mired in Iran Contra and being a crotchety but loveable father figure. Perhaps that’s what the country thought it needed at the time, but we call the 80's the "Me" decade. My view of that time is that it gave us the Taliban, a war on drugs that was completely unnecessary, much self centered narcissism (not Reagan's fault, but just an unintended byproduct of the era in general), and a boatload of nationalistic hubris in international affairs which we are largely paying for today. But I am just ranting. I digress. If there was a lot of hope during the Reagan years, it was soiled or false.

So, excluding Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson, we are left with Kennedy. Sure the guy had extra-marital affairs and probably abused amphetamines or barbiturates, but the nation was, in retrospect, nuts about him. Camelot and all! He got us out of the Cuban Missile crisis and asked the great question "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." An excellent question indeed. In Kennedy we had a young, charismatic guy with a vision. He inspired people to participate.

It is not my intention to say that Edwards is the next Kennedy. However, he fits the type more than any of the other potential hopefuls. And to have Russ Feingold as his running mate would put balls and further integrity on the ticket. He was the only guy to try to reprimand the President in any palpable way for the gross ineptitude that has led us to our current state of affairs. Plus, demographically, the combo totally rocks! Edwards is a southern boy and Feingold is rock solidly from the heartland.

Of the other obvious possibilities, it’s not my intention to slight Hillary, but she is so divisive that I disqualify her from my consideration primarily because if she were nominated, the acrimonious partisanship would escalate to such a nasty degree that any hopes of positive gains in getting people to be interested in government again would be shot to hell.

Work is distracting me too much. This is all I can cogently (if that) string together right now. Chew on it and let me know how it tastes.

American Political Mathematics

Republican:
Blatantly lying about WMD and taking the country to war for no legitimate reason + Lying about knowledge about levees breaking in New Orleans + Leaking intelligence for political gain + Authorizing the NSA to wiretapping United States citizens + Fraternizing with corrupt politicians = A lack of support to even censure the President.

Democrat:
President lies about being fellated by a fat woman, other than his wife + Being sort of shady about realestate dealings prior to his presidency = Impeachment

American Democracy is grand indeed.