Tom Daschle's Ghost

Tonight's Debate

2008-02-26T22:18:00.002-05:00

First of all, I think it's funny how the cable news networks hosting presidential debates market them in the same way the broadcast networks hype American Idol or Lost. When CNN hosted the last one, their website's front page was entirely devoted to slavering coverage of every moment of back-and-forth. You can't even find a peep regarding tonight's MSNBC debate on it now. Same deal with MSNBC; this 'rhetorical slugfest' (their words) covers a main page that didn't deem the CNN debate worthy of a few lines a while back.

I'm not linking to them on GP.

Clinton's histrionics about healthcare (16 full minutes) ended with a big ol' group hug by the end of the night, and Obama's calm and reasoned response was borne out as the right response by Clinton's gradual toning-down of her rhetoric. And her shrieking about being asked the first question complemented her poorly-placed sarcasm about the Obama SNL skit, asking him if he'd like another pillow.

At this point, Clinton has to be coming around to the unpleasant reality that nobody really wants to go back and fight the old battles of the 90s. He's not going to polarize the electorate the way Clinton will. The country has suffered enormously under the Bush administration in every conceivable way, and Obama is the only one,, in my opinion, who has the ability to heal the country while moving it forward in the right direction.

But they're both right when you look at their Cuddly Comments at the end of the debate. Both of them would be light-years better than McCain and their differences are minor at best, and both Clinton and Obama will put America back on track.

This is bound to get consumed by the spin cycle and analyzed until it's been bled white. Personally, I'm just looking forward to next Tuesday.

Consider My Gut Wrenched

2008-02-03T23:42:00.001-05:00

There is one point of hope that came out of tonight. A friend asked me, "Would you be willing to sacrifice a Patriots win tomorrow for Obama sweeping Super Tuesday and marching on to the White House?"

The sad thing is that I had to think long and hard about my answer. But it was yes- I'd be willing to let my dreams of a Patriots 19-0 season die if it meant our ship of state would be captained by Obama.

And now the Pats have lost, so clearly, Obama is on the march to the White House.

If you'll excuse me, I've got some more throwing up to do.

Horse Race

2008-01-09T19:29:00.000-05:00

I don't agree with the common sentiment that seems to be echoing around, that the networks had been hoping for Obama to run away with the New Hampshire primary and lock in the Democratic nomination before it even started getting warm in New England. I think the networks are in much better shape right now. There are a dozen different storylines to track for them, and a weekly horse race all the way through mid-February. This is cable-news gold.

I don't think anyone really expected Barack Obama to take New Hampshire by storm as was widely predicted. Unlike Iowa, the Democrats and Republicans are fighting for the same pool of independent voters, and a sudden shift to a candidate in one party can have a pretty irritating ripple effect on candidates in the other.

Another note: Lou Dobbs excoriating "the arrogance of the pundits" makes my head spin. If Lou Dobbs is sick and tired of hearing from pundits, he should probably start by shutting up. Actually, the sound of his voice is turning my stomach, too. Everybody wins.

I also don't think that Hillary Clinton's little display of emotion the day before the primary had much of an impact. Yes, women figured prominently in her success, but I think it's damn near an insult to assume that a couple of tears are going to sway adult Americans to vote one way or the other. If it's actually true, then I am truly saddened.

Finally, I retain my distaste for Iowa and New Hampshire having such an disproportionate role in selecting a president. Think about it. Less than four million people in a country of 300 million have a massively larger say in selecting that nation's leader than the other 296. I understand the goal of having early primaries in small states (less cost to reach voters, gives more people a chance to meet the candidates proportionally) but I regard that as a convenience.

In the end, a primary voter in New York is valued less, courted less and generally pandered to far less than one in Iowa or New Hampshire. What makes the Iowa or NH voters more valuable? What makes their sacred position so valuable that it's worth punishing voters in Florida or Wyoming to protect it? Tradition and convenience do not outweigh the fundamental rights of voters in the other 48 states.

Okay, now I'm gonna watch me some Stewart and Colbert.

The Handshakes

2008-01-05T22:22:00.000-05:00

The only other thing I want to say about tonight's dual Democratic and Republican debates is about the "crossover episode" where the Republican and Democratic candidates were onstage together, shaking hands. What an interesting moment. They weren't just being cordial and perfunctory. They were having legitimate conversations with each other. Is it too much to hope that the winner will recruit from that group, within and without their own parties, to fill high-level positions?

(Yes, I've been stealing a friend's copy of "Team of Rivals." Is it that obvious?) Also, the president who will take the oath of office on January 20th, 2009 needs to appoint Mike Gravel as our first Secretary of Being Hilarious.

I'm going to give Hillary a compliment on one point. She had to defend herself against a poorly-phrased Charlie question about how she's not likable enough. (What a dumb and insulting thing to say, "Why don't people like you more?") She responded well, by saying "That hurts my feelings," and I think she's right to say so. I met the woman once, and she really was quite likable and friendly. I don't think she's a bad person and if it were between her and any of the Republicans, I'd vote for her. I just don't think she's the best Democrat available, that's all.

Did anybody notice that during that moment, Ron Paul wasn't doing too much gladhanding? I'm still holding out hope that he can play the spoiler in any close election, running as an independent, and pull a Nader on the Republican Party. That would be pretty exciting.

Change!

2008-01-05T21:36:00.000-05:00

The two candidates I like the least in this debate have been quite thoroughly tag-teamed by the four candidates I like the most. Apparently taking a cue from the Huckabee-McCain playbook, John Edwards and Barack Obama re-enacted the Iceman-Maverick dogfight from Top Gun and drove Hillary Clinton out of her sanguine, I'm-a-sure-thing demeanor. They forced her into a caricature of herself, damn near screeching about how she's been effecting change for the last 35 years. When this thing is over, Edwards is going shake hands with Obama and yell, "You can be my wingman any time!"

Let me just say that I don't agree with ABC's decision to exclude Kucinich and Gravel. It doesn't speak well, in a democracy where airtime is the lifeblood of a candidate, to exclude those considered "marginal." Their finish in one primary or their level of funding shouldn't determine whether or not the public is permitted to hear their message. Mainly, I am upset that I've been denied another gut-busting episode of the Mike Gravel Show.

And she deserved the attack, too. Accusing Obama of switching positions on Iraq (which was abundantly untrue) reeked of the hyper-simplistic, telegenic attack politics of the 2004 Bush campaign. Remember the "flip-flop" crap?

I just think that predicating the entire 2008 election on the amorphous term "change" might not be entirely advisable. Isn't that why we vote for political candidates? We want to change something about the status quo? Nobody ever won an election based on "stay the course" (or at least, on that alone- Reagan won on a lot of other points, and Bush 41 lost on it.)

Obama has gotten a little flustered in some cases too, but he looks like he chugged a Valium milkshake compared to Hillary. The only thing on which I disagree with him, is his knot choice for his necktie. It's just done wrong. He needs to be tying a full Windsor knot, not some mangled half-Windsor. Maybe that can be his next joint project with Edwards, who's sporting a perfect example of the Windsor.

Excellent hair and tie-knot aside, I'd like to point out that I'd take Edwards and Richardson ahead of Clinton. I don't think Richardson would be a bad choice, but for me, Edwards' anti-corporate agenda makes him a good choice. What bothers me is his trial-attorney past and some of the shenanigans he used during his ambulance-chasing days.

And Bill Richardson needs to stop pounding on the table. I don't think he realizes how obnoxious it is, and how loudly it's reverberating in his microphone. Maybe he can look over at Hillary and pound on the table with a shoe yelling about how he'll bury her.

Is Facebook still sponsoring this? My head is spinning. This just in: the New York Times and eBay will be hosting an online auction, where candidates will bid on five minutes of uninterrupted airtime. (Except for Mitt Romney, who will be forced to bid with Monopoly money.)

Facebook Sponsors Debates?

2008-01-05T20:51:00.000-05:00

I'm watching the WMUR/ABC/Facebook debate right now, and I'm more than a little surprised to learn that Facebook has taken an active role in politics. I mean, I understand the YouTube participation in the CNN debates. A candidate having a "YouTube moment" became a political catchphrase after the George Allen "macaca" scandal, but Facebook?

I don't know, it just sounds weird to me. Maybe college students are playing drinking games while watching the debates (I did it in my day) and then posting boozy pictures of it on Facebook. Who knows. I'm just waiting for the NBC/GMail debates, where candidates will GChat snarky messages about what everyone else is wearing to Brian Williams.

Speaking of snarky messages, Mike Huckabee and John McCain are clearly making good on their threats to gang up on Romney. Romney mentioned his positions and Huckabee jumped in to say, "Which ones?" to laughter. And when Romney characterized himself as the candidate of change, John McCain said that he agreed with that to more laughter, obviously pointing to Romney's inconsistent positions. Romney got defensive and hurt, and spent most of the night this way.

If you hadn't heard of these threats, the New York Times quoted Huckabee campaign manager Ed Rollins as declaring that he and the McCain campaign were "going to see if we can't take out Romney." This is exactly what needs to happen. Mitt Romney is electable, telegenic, financially loaded, and the worst possible candidate for the Democratic nominee to have to battle. If McCain (too old and too liberal on immigration) and Huckabee (way too Christian and populist) are the big winners in New Hampshire, the Republican base is gonna stay home.

And if you want to keep the fired-up Democratic base home, the best thing you can do is convince them that the old Clinton administration is coming back. Hillary did a great job of that after Iowa, with a tableau that included Wesley Clark (I think) and Madeleine Albright as well as ol' Bill himself. A lot of Clinton supporters (some of whom have posted responses on my site) have claimed that she's the only one who can take on the Republican attack machine. And they're right- only Hillary Clinton can stand up to the Republican attacks of George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. The problem is that it's 2008. We have bigger battles to fight than the ones of the late '90s.

Okay, the Democrats are talking now. I'm going back to the TV.

I Am So Happy

2008-01-03T23:20:00.000-05:00

I just can't express how excited and happy I am for the direction this country's taking tonight. Seeing Obama win, and make an eminently Presidential victory speech on TV, led to screeching and cheering at my house. And the selection of an eminently defeatable Mike Huckabee by Iowa voters led to my house's moderate Republican admitting that he would rather vote for tonight's blue option than the red.

This is the first night that I've felt legitimately hopeful about the direction of American politics in a really long time.

The Republican Debate

2007-12-01T16:20:00.000-05:00

This is ungodly sad.

At the exact time when political candidates need the wind taken out of their sails, the writer's strike has wiped late-night comedy off the map. It's just not there anymore. And for someone who loved Colbert and Stewart even at the cost of a decent night's sleep, who relied on those pundits for reassurance that I wasn't the only one who thought about that stuff...I don't know. It just feels lonely.

Not that I think they ought to come back without getting their demands met. I'm not going to delve too deeply into the WGA strike in this post, but what they're asking for is eminently reasonable. For example, if a network shows a rerun of a show they wrote on TV, they get a small cut of the ad revenue. But if they stream that same show online (supported by banner-ad revenue) the writers get nothing. Theoretically, networks could stream the entirety of their programming online and would, under the current contract, be obligated to pay the people who wrote it nothing. Yeah, that sounds fair.

But apparently Mike Huckabee has decided he's going to take over in the absence of comedy writers. Let's be clear. I'm not voting for a Republican, especially him. He's a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay Southern Baptist minister, for God's sake. (No pun intended.) Short of being a paid spokesman for a conglomerate that sells oil, pharmaceuticals and cigarettes, he pretty much couldn't get any worse.

Except for the fact that Mike Huckabee is freakin' hilarious. If you didn't watch the YouTube Republican debate last night, you missed out on some pretty funny stuff. (A lot of people didn't watch the Republican debate for the same reason they won't watch their hometown teams play the New England Patriots; there's no sense in worrying about the roster when your squad's gonna get bulldozed anyway.)

Ummm, I keep comparing politics to the New England Patriots. I should probably dial that back a little.

Anyway, aside from the fact that Huckabee is nuts, he told some killer jokes last night. I'm sure they're all up on YouTube, so you're welcome to check them out. But the highlights were, in my opinion:

1) Jesus being too smart to run for public office
2) Hillary being a good candidate for the first rocket to Mars
3) Being willing to take his support from Log Cabin Republicans because in his position he needs "anybody and everybody I can get"
4) Mitt Romney's tryout for the Pro Bowl of being a dipshit.

I guess Huckabee can't really take credit for the last one, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. The rest of the country is rapidly discovering what us Bay State residents (and expatriates) have known for the last ten years: Mitt Romney is a hypocritical neo-conservative goofball with just enough political acumen to leave everyone angry and divided without actually getting anything done.

Consider this: Mitt Romney was openly touting the benefits of sending people to Guantanamo last night and wouldn't condemn waterboarding, even to the face of John McCain, who got tortured for five years in a Vietnamese prison camp. His excuse was that he didn't want to discuss which methods we did or didn't use, as that'd help the enemy to prepare accordingly. A cop-out answer that was delivered poorly.

Giulani had some intentional humor that went over pretty well. Each candidate got to air one of their own videos, and Giuliani (apparently hitting back at the Biden comment that to make a Giuliani sentence, you just needed a noun, verb and 9/11) took credit for defeating King Kong and reducing the annual snowfall.

Even Ron Paul had a funny line. He said something to the effect of how he was "struggling to learn how to spend money" because he suddenly had a ton of it. I actually have a lot of respect for Dr. Paul, but kinda like the Yankees, the fans give the organization a bad name. Good Lord. All you need to do is mention Ron Paul somewhere on the interwebs, and if you dare call him a fringe candidate, your blog or MySpace page or Italian-recipe message board will get swamped in angry posts demanding that you "look at the data" and inevitably mentioning that he raised $4.2 million in one day.

They're right on one thing. He's not a fringe candidate anymore. But he's not going to win, either. The irritating thing about the Paul supporters is that they're using information that proves one thing (he's not a fringe candidate or a joke, he's got actual support) and trying to convince you that it actually proves something totally different (he's really gonna win.) They've been so busy trying to prove he's not fringe (successfully, in my opinion) that their data has far outpaced their new message (that he can win.)

Oh, man, I just said something not-quite-complimentary about Paul supporters. This blog is probably going to suffer a DDOS attack within about an hour. Look, guys, I respect your candidate and I don't think he's "fringe." He's got a clear and principled message. Just.....try to keep things in perspective, and easy on the Kool-Aid, okay?

Back to Huckabee: He didn't just crack me up at last night's debate. The guy has made repeated trips to the Colbert Report, and Colbert even made him promise that if Huckabee won, Colbert would be his VP. (Which was hilarious to think about last night, because Huckabee spent five minutes listing qualities he'd want in a VP and I kept thinking of how I would have no choice but to vote for them.)

But best of all has been Huckabee's Chuck Norris ad. I'll let you watch it and then spend a couple of minutes recovering from the laughter-induced seizure.

*pause*

Okay, you're probably back up off the floor now. I know it's not a good idea to vote for someone just because they're likable or funny. This isn't high school (although it does look like it occasionally, John Edwards.) And I know that having Mike Huckabee as President would basically be four years (no way he'd get re-elected) of President Ned Flanders.

If I suddenly woke up tomorrow and had Gregor Samsa'd into a flaming Republican, I'd wear out my PayPal account giving Huckabee money. As I don't see that happening anytime in this century, I'm going to stick with trying to decide between Edwards and Obama.

In closing, someone should remind the Cleveland Plain Dealer that it's not a good idea to eat the brownies at Dennis Kucinich's house, because they make you write articles like this.

Bill Belichick = Hillary Clinton

2007-11-14T19:27:00.000-05:00

I don't quite understand why everyone is so surprised that Hillary Clinton's staff were pre-staging friendly questioners in the audience at "town hall meetings." Has anybody ever watched footage of these events and thought, "Hmm, what a frank exchange of ideas that provides raw, unfiltered insight into the candidate and their vision for America!"

(Has anybody ever watched footage of these events, period? That's the better question. When they're not spiced with a YouTube moment or a particularly nasty comment about an opponent, they're a visual substitute for Ambien.)

My problem with the whole Hillary operation is that she's actually painting herself as an underdog. The woman is the 800-pound gorilla on both sides of the aisle, and she and Giuliani have been itching for a rematch ever since he dropped out of the 2000 Senate race after his cancer diagnosis. (Okay, maybe Rudy has. Hillary, I doubt.) She's got a double-digit lead over Obama and Edwards and commands the vast majority of the political resources that got her husband elected, plus more that she's marshaled on her own. The unofficial Hillary website hillaryis44.com raises an outcry about an "anti-Hillary mob."

The whole point is that Hillary is playing the underdog, and doing it as part of a calculated strategy. This woman is the Bill Belichick of the Democratic field; she's in it to win no matter what and, if challenged, will retaliate with overwhelming and borderline inappropriate force. When anyone criticizes her, her campaign lashes out brutally. It's the political equivalent of running up the score against the Redskins.

(Also, I should point out that I'm a huge Pats fan, but I'm not such a huge Hillary fan.)

Anyway, my point is that we shouldn't be surprised that Hillary would pull something like this. In the pantheon of dirty political tricks, it's not really that dirty. Kind of like using a video camera to steal signals during a Jets game. Everybody does it, it doesn't garner that much of an advantage, and in the end, the only thing remarkable about Hillary planting questions in the audience is that she got caught.

Finally, I will end this blog with a link to a truly amazing campaign sticker. You can buy t-shirts and stickers with that emblazoned on it at townienews.com, which also features the funniest New England sports fan to get overpaid by ESPN since Bill Simmons.

Happy 232nd Birthday

2007-11-10T13:27:00.000-05:00

If you know anyone who is actively serving in the Marines Corps (or who used to) you ought to wish them a happy birthday today. (I say "used to" because to the Marines, there are no ex-Marines, with the possible exception of Lee Harvey Oswald.)

Anyway, on November 10th, 1775, the Continental Congress authorized the creation of the Marines, and since the late 1800s, the Marines have recognized 11/10 as their collective birthday. New recruits are encouraged to adopt this date as "their" birthday, symbolizing their new identity as Marines.

The tradition doesn't end there. At Marines Corps birthday celebrations, they cut the cake with a friggin' sword. (How awesome is that?) The oldest Marine in attendance gets to sample the first piece of cake, followed by the youngest. This symbolizes the continuity of the Marine Corps tradition.

Anyway, if you know any young or old Marines, today would be a good day to wish them a happy 232nd birthday.

Mark Warner

2007-11-05T20:24:00.000-05:00

I think Mark Warner is a good guy. He's a good example of a business-friendly Democrat, a guy who used his millions made in the private sector to affect Virginia politics for the better. I think his heart's in the right place and his politics reflect where America needs to be going.

But the guy will never get a dollar of campaign contributions from me, nor will he get a supportive vote or even so much as a honked horn at a traffic circle. Why?

Because the guy was one of the early investors in Nextel, and those phones suck. Oh, my God, they suck. Four guys from my office once stood on the roof of a building that had Verizon and Nextel antennae on top of it. Their personal Verizon phones got full bars, while their Nextels had one bar or no service at all.

Who's to say he's not going to invest political capital, as a senator, in a program that will leave us saying, "Can you hear me now? Dammit!"

In (Grudging) Defense of Blackwater

2007-10-05T16:29:00.000-04:00

I am really conflicted about this whole mess with Blackwater. As a center-left Democrat, the idea of a private military corporation spawned with Republican seed money whose owner (and his family) chuck hundreds of thousands of dollars to the likes of Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed, is sickening. On the other hand, if you put Erik Prince's personal politics aside, what he's done is pretty damn impressive.

He took his family's money (his dad made billions in the lighted car mirror industry, I guess?) and set up a little security training company in a North Carolina swamp with his buddies from the SEALs. Post-9/11, the U.S. government needed a lot of people protected by experienced folks but didn't have the resources to do it in all war zones, all the time. So Blackwater got the $27 million contract to protect Paul Bremer. (Based on the job he did, I think Bremer deserved the protection of mall rent-a-cops, but that's just me.) And it went from there.

Anyway, I looked at the New York Times' coverage of the attack on the Polish ambassador to Iraq on Thursday, after all of this stuff was coming to a head. Democrats in Congress were declaring how Blackwater wasn't accountable, they were out of control, and they needed to be reigned in. And then I saw this NYT article.

Take a look at the first picture. The guys in the black helmets are Polish troopers. The dude with the bandaged face is clearly the ambassador. And the guys in the back are U.S. Army soldiers. So who's the helicopter pilot guy in the blue t-shirt? Was it Casual Thursday at the local firebase? No. That's a Blackwater pilot. The Polish ambassador's evacuation was set up, carried out and protected by Blackwater.

With Congress calling for fewer and fewer troops in Iraq, leading to an eventual pullout, the U.S. military very well might not have had the personnel available to get the Polish ambassador out in the first place. And when Congressional delegations come to Iraq, as Erik Prince politely pointed out in his written testimony, who protects them? It's not the U.S. military. It's Blackwater. Apparently Congress doesn't trust Mr. Prince to safeguard Iraqi innocent Iraqi lives, but they sure as hell trust him to safeguard their own.

More accountability is a good thing. Jesus, even Prince supports the bill that Congress passed tightening accountability on private contractors. But using Blackwater as an example of the Bush administration's mismanagement of Iraq and claiming that it's some kind of rogue mercenary army is crap. They've completed thousands of successful protective missions where they've never fired their weapons. One mismanaged incident where civilians were needlessly killed- while undeniably horrible- does not constitute proof of systemic private-sector mayhem.

And while the Department of State is the client who's been taking the heat, I know for a fact that they're not the only federal agency with whom Blackwater contracts. You better believe that those other agencies aren't just letting Blackwater run loose for the fun of it.

Look, Iraq was a bad idea. Staying there for any real period of time remains a bad idea. But since Bush has put us there, the U.S. government needs certain short- and medium-term capabilities that they can't get from the current system. The Diplomatic Security Service doesn't have anywhere near enough agents to meet the demand, but you can't just hire a bunch of them overnight- let alone fire them all once we finally get the hell out. Contractors, like it or not, meet a need.

Yeah, I know. I excoriated private contractors in the last post. I remember. But unlike the domestic need for experienced civil servants, or Customs & Border Protection officers, DSS probably won't need the volume of personnel that Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp provide in 2007, by 2012. Scalable provision of specialized services is where contractors, like it or not, tend to shine. And that, in part, is why it costs so much to send a Blackwater guy over to protect someone- they gotta feed, clothe, arm, transport and pay their own way over to the most dangerous place in the world, without any support from our military.

And that's what can't be argued. Blackwater, 99.9% of the time, does a really good friggin' job. You may not like Erik Prince, and you may not like his politics or what he does with his money. (I sure as hell don't.) Most thinking people now realize that the only way to salvage something worthwhile out of Iraq is diplomacy, and that's not going to happen if our diplomats aren't safe. So while Blackwater (and the other guys) should be held more accountable, it remains a question of supply and demand. These guys supply a needed service, and the current situation in Iraq creates a major demand.

Second-Class Law Enforcement?

2007-09-14T19:25:00.000-04:00

Okay, I'm going to show you two pictures and ask you to answer a very important question: Which one of these two men are federal law enforcement officers?

1) This is a Customs & Border Protection (CBP) Officer. He carries a gun and handcuffs, wears a bulletproof vest, and drives a police cruiser with lights and sirens. He has full arrest powers, can seize evidence, and can execute search warrants. He received his training at the U.S. Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia. He and his fellow CBP officers conduct inspections and provide security at 326 American border crossings, searching for smuggled drugs, weapons, contrabands and illegal immigrants.

2) This is Matt Hasselbeck. He's the quarterback for the Seattle Seahawks. He received his training playing football for BC. He threw 222 passing yards against Tampa Bay in the season opener and occupies the second-string QB slot on my fantasy football team (since I'm not going to sit Donovan McNabb. What am I, crazy?)

So again, the question is- which one of these guys is a federal law enforcement officer?

You may be surprised to learn that the answer is, neither one. The CBP officer, even though he receives full law enforcement training, carries a firearm and has arrest powers (criteria which otherwise define 'police' under government personnel regulations) doesn't receive the classification, and therefore retirement benefits, as other federal law enforcement officers.

(Also, Matt Hasselbeck probably is not any sort of law enforcement official. To the best of my knowledge he’s a decent, but not outstanding, NFL quarterback. But I’m not certain- there was that Tommy Lee Jones movie where he was a cop and had to protect a bunch of cheerleaders, so you never really know.)

Now federal law enforcement officers aren't the same as federal special agents, like those employed by the FBI, DEA, or DSS. Agents have nationwide jurisdiction and investigate federal crimes (as well as other duties) while federal law enforcement officers provide police service for various federal assets and personnel. For example, the Federal Protective Service is responsible for providing police protection to almost 9,000 federal office buildings nationwide. Other organizations with special requirements, such as our friends at No Such Agency, maintain their own police forces for their facilities.

But all of these various federal police officers are treated under similar personnel classifications. These ensure that they get comparable retirement and pay benefits. (Although the benefits packages do vary sometimes- for example, only the Capitol Police have the on-the-job privilege of hauling Code Pink nut jobs off to the pokey.) These benefits are incredibly important if you want to retain the talent and experience within your own workforce, instead of hemorrhaging freshly-hired personnel to better jobs. Which is exactly what CBP is facing right now- its officers are leaving after a year or two on the job. Sometimes less than that.

The problem is that the Bush administration doesn't think CBP officers deserve the status of federal law enforcement officer. In their Statement of Administration Policy on June 12th, they strongly objected to a bill that would fixed this, claiming that the definition of “law enforcement officers” under the federal retirement system differed from the "commonly understood" one. The real difficulty here, to which they admit, is that giving CBP officers the retirement package (called "6c retirement') and benefits they deserve, will cost a lot of money. I should point out that t he U.S. Postal Police and Veterans' Administration Police are in the same boat as the CBP officers.

Again- these guys make arrests, execute search warrants, carry firearms and handcuffs, drive police cruisers and are trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Honestly, what the hell else can you call them?

Granted, a few CBP officers actually like this setup. Since they’re not technically law enforcement officers, they can rack up “double-time” in a way that the other federal cops can’t. However, the majority is dissatisfied with the situation. They don’t like getting screwed on their benefits, but more importantly, they (rightly) feel marginalized and under-appreciated by the refusal to recognize them as law enforcement. It’s this kind of administrative behavior that has CBP officers voting with their feet, and it’s endemic throughout the Department of Homeland Security. A survey of federal employees ranked them rock-bottom for job satisfaction.

This all comes back to the basic Republican philosophy. (Yeah, I’m going to make this political. Tough.) Their core claim is that they put their trust in people, and not in government. Well, that's nice. But it fuels the kind of lunatic thinking that outsources unholy amounts of federal work to private contractors while slashing the civil service, eventually spending the same money for inferior work so they can cynically claim to have cut the federal bureaucracy. How does that put trust in their people?

Well, it's the same thing here. A major component of the Presidential plan for border and homeland security is to vastly expand the size of CBP. He wants to add agents and officers, as well as millions of dollars in equipment and fencing for the SBInet (Secure Border Initiative) program. This would be the much-vaunted 'virtual fence' out there in the desert incorporating security cameras, motion sensors, and gee-whiz gadgets like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, better known as Predator drones.

Bush has no problem advocating an avalanche of funding to expand and improve CBP's capabilities. But when it comes to the costs of maintaining them, and ensuring that they can retain experienced personnel, the Bush White House expects us to believe that they're poorer than churchmice.

You see, there's nothing sexy about federal retirement programs. No one can point to them as a massive homeland-security victory and they're not going to get anyone re-elected. But these men and women literally put their lives on the line to keep drugs, weapons, terrorists, contraband and human traffickers out of our country. Hiding behind a technicality and claiming that 6c retirement for these officers isn't a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars....that's crap.

And I think developing an experienced and professional workforce to protect our nation's border crossings really is a homeland security victory, albeit a small one. That is, if anyone in the White House had the foresight to recognize it.

Betray-Us

2007-09-10T15:19:00.000-04:00

A few somewhat-related comments on the Petraeus/Crocker hearings of yesterday and the day before. I was fortunate enough to have both days off work, so I got to sit on the couch and geek out while watching almost the entirety of the hearings on C-SPAN. I'm not blessed with a Congressional press pass, like some folks I know, so C-SPAN is the next best thing.

-The room in which the hearing was held is the same one where the old House Committee on Un-American Activities (better known as the McCarthy hearings) used to hold court. I'm searching for a connection but not quite finding one.

-The MoveOn.org ad, using the term "General Betray Us," was so counterproductive I can't even think straight. It did the same thing that those crazies who screamed and shouted and protested from galleries did- associated thoughtful people on the left who have legitimate questions about the war, with the nutbags who write "Troops Home Now" in fake blood on their dresses. Ugh.

Although to be fair, the nutbags who get dragged out of the House chambers do make for some pretty good entertainment value. Maybe that's why C-SPAN hasn't adopted the same policy of pro sports leagues; if you illegally disrupt the proceedings, you're not going to get shown on TV. I think it should be the same way. There are legal and illegal ways to protest Congressional action, or the actions of those before Congress. If you engage in illegal activity during your protest, you shouldn't have the PR benefit of airtime. Period.

Also, this would be kinda self-serving because then progressives wouldn't have their legitimate dissent visually associated with those Code Pink wackos.

-While watching the chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Tom Lantos (D-CA,) I decided to use Google Image Search to try and figure out to which one of the Star Wars cantina scene aliens he was most closely related. I'm currently thinking the T-headed dude.

-Joking aside, my overall concern with the way the hearings went (and this is abbreviated, trust me- the site crashed and I lost a much longer version of this post) was that everyone except for two New Yorkers (Gary Ackerman, a Dem, and John McHugh, a Republican) seemed to be asking the wrong questions. Everyone else wanted to know how soon the troops would come home, what strategy we would use, or how the war would be prosecuted. Our New Yorkers were asking the one question that really seemed to matter to me- is it worth it? Petraeus didn't have much of an answer.

-Perhaps the most telling moment of the rounds of hearings, for me, happened while I was listening on the radio. (So I have no idea who asked the question.) But someone asked Petraeus, "General, is this war making America safer?" And after some pro-caliber hemming and hawing, he said, essentially, that his mission was to ensure stability and democracy in Iraq and he couldn't honestly say yes or no.

Wow.

DSS and Godzilla

2007-07-19T00:25:00.000-04:00

Two things that I'd like to point out, if briefly:

1) I received a number of comments, mostly positive, on the last piece, some of which I've published. Three sub-things I'd like to address to the folks who responded:

a) To the DSS agents who posted responses, thank you. I take it as a compliment that you took the time to read this, let alone respond. You do a difficult job exceptionally well and I (as well my other readers, I'm sure) thank you.
b) Thanks to everyone, DSS and others, who provided clarification on my facts regarding the agency. I may not always get it right the first time, and I appreciate your input.
b) The DSS folks will probably get a laugh out of the fact that my girlfriend had actually been campaigning to see "A Mighty Heart" (which I've since learned has an accurate portrayal of DSS.) I, however, managed to sell her on "Live Free or Die Hard" that day (which has an accurate portrayal of absolutely nothing.)

It seems that the Diplomatic Security Service, and my girlfriend, share a taste in movies that is superior to my own. I'm okay with that. On to the next item:

2) Japan recently had a natural disaster where an earthquake tipped over "hundreds" of barrels of nuclear waste, dumping 317 gallons of radioactive goo into the Sea of Japan. I will give you a few moments to consider the implications of this, and to reach the abundantly and painfully obvious conclusion.

WE ARE WATCHING THE FIRST TEN MINUTES OF A GODZILLA MOVIE.

How has this not been all over the media? The Internet? This is how every Godzilla movie starts! Radioactive goo or Gamma rays or some shit gets into the Sea of Japan. The government covers it up (badly.) The local populace goes about their lives. Then Navy submarines start to disappear. Someone starts to put the pieces together, but by then it's too late; we already see a giant monster climbing radio towers and flipping tanks over with his fiery breath.

(These rules go out the window when Matthew Broderick and Jean Reno are involved, however.)

I work in the National Capital Region, and I can say from firsthand experience that most federal agencies, some state governments and even a few local jurisdictions have contingency plans for everything. Absolutely everything. There has got to be some team of experts, maybe within the Wildlife Service or something, that can be sent over to help the Japanese manage rampaging, 50-foot-high dino-monsters. And if no such team exists, then we need to start putting one together. Right the hell now.

I'm kind of kidding, but if I see something on CNN about missing submarines, then I am buying dinosaur insurance and heading for the hills. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Making a DSS Agent

2007-07-05T10:43:00.000-04:00

In the intelligence and law enforcement community, getting "made" means that you did something that identified your agency affiliation to the general public, or to the bad guys. Getting into a Suburban with Department of Homeland Security plates would "make" you, for example, as working or being associated with DHS.

Cut to Sunday evening of this week. My girlfriend and I are in line at a Chipotle in Washington, having just finished watching the new Die Hard movie. Which is totally sweet, by the way. As a side note, without spoiling the movie, there's a moment in it, in which FBI agents stress about their inability to reach a secret federal facility in Woodlawn, Maryland. They can't find helicopters and the roads are blocked, so it'll take them a while. Here's the funny thing: Having been there, I know for a fact that the FBI's Baltimore field office is IN (drumroll) Woodlawn, Maryland. All they'd have to do, would be to walk down the street.

Okay, so, back to DSS. Actually, I should say "Bureau of Diplomatic Security," but they used to be the Diplomatic Security Service, so, I'm allowed. The Discovery Times channel did a big special about them. They're like the Secret Service, except they protect the Secretary of State, key foreign dignitaries (like in NYC at the UN) and provide security services abroad to State Department personnel. They're in the weird position of being federal law enforcement agents who are often assigned overseas.

Essentially, Diplomatic Security/DSS is the Secret Service working in semi- and non-permissive environments. The President does not go to Gaza. But the Secretary of State sure does. So DSS has to train with military special-ops types as well as all kinds of shadowy intelligence agencies to get the right cooperation and information. They're like an indie Secret Service, except all the more badass.

So when I saw a few black Suburbans and Crown Vics with U.S. government and D.C. tags outside the Chipotle, and a few late-20s, early-30s guys in suits with bright green pins and clear earpieces, I figured they had to be some kind of federal protective agents. They couldn't be Secret Service (wrong kind of lapel pins.) But a minimal motorcade, guys in suits, and federal tags on black law-enforcement-style cars? Probably DSS.

So my girlfriend and I made a plan (okay, she made it, I got onboard with it.) We walked across as they waited outside for their protectee, I assumed, and I strode up to one of them. They instantly turned and the lead one fixed me with the kind of probing, penetrating and unnerving stare that you apparently get issued at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia.

I tried not to wilt. "Okay, so my girlfriend and I have a bet going. She thinks you guys are Capitol Police, and I think you're Diplomatic Security." There was a pause just long enough to make me worry that they wouldn't tell me, but finally, the agent uncrossed his arms and pointed a finger at me.

"You're right," he said, not exactly wasting any words. I turned to my girlfriend, grinned, and slapped her five.

"Knew it!" I turned back to the agent and said, "Thanks," and she and I strode away without looking back.

Here's the thing. Very few people are familiar with DSS. Most of the ones who are, either worked for them or watched the Discovery Times special (which doesn't get many reruns.) I imagine- in fact, I am almost positive- that we made those DSS special agents say, "Uhh, that guy in the jeans and his girlfriend made us as DSS. Are we really obvious?"

And that's what I call fun.

What Would You Pay?

2007-06-18T14:46:00.001-04:00

So my girlfriend told me about an event that's being held in DC tonight called "Small Change for Big Change." Held at the swanky 1223 Club in DuPont Circle, it's a John Edwards fundraiser which would be unremarkable except for the price of admission. Which is kinda the story; getting in the door costs you a distinctly non-presidential $15. This the the Edwards campaign site that referenced the last one:

It looks a lot less McNeil-Lehrer News, and a lot more Happy, Hour, than most of the presidential fundraisers you see. Hillary Clinton has been doing them too, but in her case, it's only a couple hundred bucks in the door. She's got a little more star power and commands a little more cash, but in the end, if you're a starving college student who just has to meet her, well...you can most likely afford it. If you don't mind skipping a meal or three.

It's a new strategy fueled by the "netroots" movement, which can move a lot of money by getting a lot of people to contribute small amounts. MoveOn.org is the 800-pound gorilla of this whole thing, but it works well and it seems to work particularly well for Democrats. If you can't get the big money out of politics, you can at least organize the small money in a way that'll counterbalance.

But this got me thinking. You're essentially paying $15 to get a wave, a hello, and possibly a handshake from John Edwards, who might possibly be the next President of the United States. If you're lucky, you might get a minute or two of Face Time chatting with him. On the far other end of the spectrum, you have $12,000-a-plate "executive donor" dinners in Washington with Republicans and the President, where you can bend ol' George's ear on just about anything you like. (I'd suggest Iraq, but I doubt he would appreciate it.) And on the Democratic side of the aisle, you could pay about the same for a big dinner in Hollywood and chat up Nancy Pelosi. If you weren't too busy trying to get Kevin Spacey's autograph.

Here's my question. What would you pay for "face time" with any of the candidates? What's the asking price vs. the actual demand? I know that I'd pay more or less, based on how much they interested me. Obama would be at the top, around $120, followed by Edwards and Clinton at maybe $80, and then down until you hit Dodd, Biden or Bill Richardson (probably $20 or $30.)

Of course, here's where the fun starts. Once we descend into the depths of Dennis Kucinich or Mike "Crazy" Gravel, my personal offering price goes back up because of the entertainment value they add. (Just so you know, I would actually be willing to contribute to the Republicans, too. I don't think that my $100 would actually affect the outcome of the election, whereas the hilariousness would last a lifetime.)

With that in mind, I now offer my current index of dollars I'd be willing to pay, for the opportunity to ask certain questions of, or say certain things to the candidates. Hopefully without being arrested. And so, in no particular order:

Rudy Giuliani: $105 to talk for fifteen uninterrupted minutes on any topic of his choosing, without once referencing 9/11.

Mike Huckabee: $30 to talk for ten minutes about evolution, intelligent design, sex education and the form in which they should be taught in schools. And then I get to put it on YouTube.

Dennis Kucinich: $390 to pinch his cheek and say, "You're such a cute little pwesidential candidate! Yes you is! Yes you is!" (Hands down, this is the one I would jump at. No shame whatsoever. If I get a call from the Kucinich campaign on this, I will take off work tomorrow, hit the ATM on my way to the airport, and write about it the next business day. That is a solemn blogger's oath.)

John McCain: $58 to talk for ten minutes on the contributions of Asian immigrants to American society.

Hillary Clinton: $112 for a straight answer on the question, "At what point after your election to the Presidency will you allow Bill to bring his dates back to the White House?"

John Edwards: $194 for a singalong to any AC/DC or Guns 'N Roses tune. (Excluding November Rain.) The goal of this would be to let him retaliate for the "I Feel Pretty" video that went up on YouTube. The man deserves a shot, and not that weak "it's good for democracy" crap that went up as the video response. The link's here:

Fred Thompson: $44 for him to do the Law & Order "dum dum" sound effect, a cappella. An additional $44 if he hums the whole theme song.

Bill Richardson: $29 to explain to me how a guy with the whitest name of all time is "the Latino candidate." I just really want to know.

Mike Gravel: $299 for a one-hour Q&A where he addresses any burning issues of national import identified by yours truly. These would include: whether men's trousers should be hiked up to the rib or the nipple line, whether rock 'n roll is the Devil's music, and what he thinks should be done about his neighbor, Dennis the Menace.

A note to my readers. If you can find examples of the candidates doing any or all of these things on YouTube (especially Clinton's) I will be quite grateful. In addition, should you have any other proposals for what would be worth your contribution to a candidate's coffers, put them in the comments. I'd love to hear them.

And if you're from any of the campaigns, I'm not kidding. I can probably organize some more people to make contributions if you'll let us get away with this. Not that you will.

The Beast Needs Feeding

2007-06-05T11:37:00.001-04:00

Why the heck do we have political debates going on in June of a non-election year? Why did we have them in May? Is there some special election, some Constitutional amendment being considered, some issue that just can’t wait? Nope. It’s just another manifestation of the American Electoral Process, Sponsored By CNN.

A caveat. I am not a person who likes bashing the media. (Fox News doesn’t count. They barely count as propaganda pushers.) Usually, if you’re bashing the media, you’re upset about an uncomfortable (inconvenient?) truth that they’re covering. And while they demonstrate an astronomical degree of apathy when it comes to the nuances of homeland security, journalists, especially print media, tend to get it right sooner or later. It’s like driving a delivery truck through a tunnel with the headlights out. Might get a little banged up on the way, but the product will get there.

(Also, I am dating a journalist and any perceived media-bashing could have monstrously unintended consequence for yours truly.)

So with that said, we are having presidential debates a full 17 months before the general election (and seven months before the first primaries) because CNN needs to make money. As does MSNBC, and Fox News. Turning the vast field of primary candidates into a lengthy horse race (slash marathon) represents an endless treasure trove of stories to fill up airtime on the 24-hour news networks.

The news channels have both the ability, and the solemn mandate, to manufacture stories. They don’t have the luxury afforded print media, to spend hours, perhaps entire days, looking for stories that might actually be worth covering. No, the flickering blue light of television is always on, and can never be silent, and so if there are no major stories to cover, they have to create them.

Referring to 24-hour news networks (and the media in general) as “the Beast,” an instructor for a Public Information Officer class once told me, “The Beast is always hungry, and the Beast requires constant feeding.” The thing about the Beast is that it’s the only animal that has the ability to make its own meals. It’s just a question of with what ingredients it chooses to prepare them.

Take Wolf Blitzer’s “Situation Room.” The name is expertly borrowed from a room in the White House where the President and his senior staff go to manage national emergencies. It just oozes urgency. And so, instinctively, you assume that whatever is going on “in the Situation Room” must be emergent and of the highest importance. But the Situation Room is a regularly scheduled show that airs five days a week. They have to fill up that airtime with exciting, breaking-news “situations,” even when that day’s news might actually be pretty lame.

The obvious answer would be for them to drop the insistence on constantly covering “breaking news” and to actually go into a little more detail. Breaking news, by its nature, is sketchy and unreliable, but it’s also the biggest selling point. It’s exciting, and going into the history, background, and complexities of a news story simply doesn’t hold the average television viewer’s attention. The whole goal is to hold their attention through the commercials, and if you bore them beforehand, the game’s over. So you have to fill up 24 hours worth of news stories, but they have to be entertaining news stories. Nothing too boring or intellectual, or they’re going to switch to Oprah.

It sounds like I’m harshing on television itself, and I’m not. I think television is a great medium for hour-long chunks of news, like the old nightly news broadcasts or 60 Minutes or the like. But the more airtime you have to fill up with engaging, exciting, and most of all entertaining news stories, the lower your standards are going to be.

So what do you do, short of bringing zoo animals and Carrot Top into the Situation Room? (Which would be AWESOME.) You try to spin up controversy, you goad newsworthy persons into saying controversial things, or you just invent your own stories. Which is exactly how the presidential race kicked off so early, and which is why we’re having debates in May and June when it’s not even an election year. The news outlets grant their most precious incentive- airtime and coverage- to potential candidates, and hang off every word from ones who have already declared.

And believe it or not, the Iraq war has actually created something of a backlash against “bad news.” Five years ago, a car bombing that killed 20 people in the Middle East would have been major, major news. 17 U.S. servicemen murdered by Islamic terrorists (anyone remember the U.S.S. Cole?) isn’t a national tragedy anymore, it’s a rough week in Iraq and gets maybe a 30-second sound bite. “If it bleeds, it leads” and “There’s no news like bad news” are losing just a little bit of their luster, because people want to hear about something- anything- other than the war.

Astutely tapping into this desire for change, and using it to address the bottom line of their business, cable news networks can just talk about What’s Next. And the only venue in which you can run news stories about stuff that hasn’t happened yet, is the political venue. No race is bigger than the presidential race, and no candidates are more interesting than presidential candidates. The answer is to start hyping the race now, stir up controversy, stir up stories, and most of all, stir up ratings.

Hillary Clinton didn’t want to declare her presidential run until much later. Commendably, she wanted to focus on her duties as a United States Senator. She figured that public interest and private money could wait while she built up a little more authority on legislative issues. Nope. This had about as much chance as Barack Obama’s promise to stay out of the race until his first Senate term was up. Nobody wanted a Hillary Vs. Everyone Else story. There had to be a somewhat-equal competitor, a Happy Gilmore to her Shooter McGavin. And the pressure- through media coverage of rumors and innuendoes- landed on Obama.

So here we are. Nothing meaningful has happened in the primary races, even though the inordinate coverage devoted to fundraising results would have you think otherwise. And with nothing meaningful having happened, we have to endure debates to create something meaningful. But without any real developments, the size of those debates is limited only by the size of the damn stage. So we have to listen to goofballs like Mikes Gravel and Huckabee or Dennis “The Lost Keebler Elf” Kucinich as the camera grants them fictional equality with Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, and anyone else who actually has a chance next November.

On November 8th, 2006, a CNN correspondent said, “This is Day 1 of the 2008 Presidential campaign.” I thought it was an exaggeration. It wasn’t. So my complaints about why we’re having political debates in June of 2007 aren’t really killing the messenger. Well, not killing the messenger because of his message. More like killing the messenger because he’s showing up so damn early.

(Am I going to watch the Republican debate tonight anyway? With my journalist girlfriend? Bet your ass.)

The Experienced vs. The Outsiders

2007-05-28T23:34:00.000-04:00

It's supremely weird when you see middle-school politics being played out on a national stage. Basically, the big choice for voters of both parties- if you can forgive sweeping generalizations (and if you read this, you probably can) is between the experienced Washington insider and the outsider with big ideas. Hillary and Obama. McCain and Giuliani (and maybe Romney.)

I first saw this false choice in middle school. Every semester, we'd elect two Student Senators to the Student Senate, and we'd elect a School President from among the ninth-graders. (The school ran 4th-9th grade.) And staring in the spring of 4th grade, the same kids we elected in the fall would run again. Never mind the fact that this governing assembly couldn't govern and barely even assembled- the incumbents would run on their "experience," and while using slightly simpler language, would promise to build on their accomplishments and track record of success.

Of course, there would always be another team or two that would run as the "outsiders." They would always drop the phrase "fresh ideas" in their speeches, and just like you couldn't go ten minutes without hearing Al Gore say "lockbox" in 2000, you couldn't go ten minutes without hearing "suggestion box" used. Never mind the fact that the suggestion box only seemed to garner intelligent commentary on Jimmy Campbell's mom, or on a certain elected student official's body odor. The always-proposed, never-enacted suggestion box was a perennial symbol of democracy, giving a hallway full of screaming fourth-graders a voice with which to speak truth to power.

The whole thing was ridiculous, and clearly served as more of a civics lesson than any real form of representation. The Student Senate's legislative accomplishments usually involved something to the effect of an extra dance per year, or more candy in the vending machines. (This was long before the era of healthy food at school.) But as a civics lesson, it worked, and it illustrated a fundamental question that gets continually asked, even in the 2008 presidential horse race- do you go with the experience or with the fresh perspective?

On the whole, I think it's a false choice. Back in middle school, "experience" versus "new ideas" really didn't sway the decision. It was about which kids had more friends, which kids were better at sports, or (in a move that would make Boss Tweed proud) which kids were smart enough to bribe their classmates with candy from the vending machines. (Whether you're quietly funneling highway projects to your Congressional district or furtively distributing Twizzlers among the electorate, no good politician is ever above buying votes.)

The point is that the new ideas were never really that new, and the experience was never really that valuable. You were voting for intangibles, and they rarely had anything to do with how the candidate made it to that point in their political career. Rather, it was about trust- whether you could trust, without question, that the person was going to do the right thing. Granted, "the right thing" in middle school involved pizza parties and sugar, not delicate foreign policy.

Trusting your guy (or girl) over their opposition is, loath as we might be to admit it, just another derivative of whether or not we like them. Nobody likes to oversimplify it this much, but we vote for candidates based on a Bush-like gut rather than a Gore-like brain. And that may be why Gore lost, in 2000- a few key voting districts thought Gore made some logical sense, but they trusted Bush to make the right call when it mattered.

A moment of silence for those voters.

Anyway. No one is going to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's spent two terms or so in the Senate, the same way nobody's going to vote for Rudy Giuliani just because his lack of national executive or legislative experience gives him a fresh perspective. You're going to vote for him because he's Rudy goddamn Giuliani and he pulled New York City together after 9/11, or you're going to vote for Hillary Clinton because you know she's got the guts to turn things around. Or Mitt Romney because he's a good, God-fearing man, or Barack Obama because it's about time we had a black man run this country.

The American public does not read political resumes, even if the news media and the Beltway population do. While it might be nice if the experience/outsider choice had some legitimacy, no one, on a fundamental level, really cares. While it may draw a thought or two, voters on either side of the aisle won't be hamstrung by how much experience, or lack thereof, their guy has. They're going to want who they want- and no burnished political resume is going to change that. (Eyes open, Chris Dodd.)

Although in my opinion, the suggestion box is vastly underrated.

Splitting The Middle

2007-05-28T01:38:00.001-04:00

Here's what I like about the current field of Republican presidential candidates. There is no clear leader. Yes, that is abundantly obvious. But it also worth pointing out that the two frontrunners are both going to do an excellent job of fracturing the Christian-right's vote.

Jerry Falwell is dead. I feel sorry for his family and for those who loved him. But I think it's an appropriate observation. Their ability to mobilize, to influence elections, is dying. The Christian right, at the moment, has almost no influence with Rudy Giuliani, nor he with them. He's pro-gay and pro-choice, and to be honest, he's doing okay in spite of it. Actually, he's running away with the field. What does this mean?

One of two things is happening, and maybe it's a combination of both. The soft-right "values voters" are willing to overlook Giuliani's stance on the Rove-driven wedge issues in favor of his national-hero status and the Republican hat he's wearing. The guy who exuded leadership on 9/11 is running as the Republican candidate for President and his appeal to once-prodigal moderates put him in good stance to win. Or, the Christian right hasn't been able to find anyone to oppose Giuliani and he's essentially running by the grace of Pat Robertson (shudder.)

I really think it's the first. Giuliani can bring lapsed Republicans back to the fold, and even if they stay home, he's got enough of an appeal to the center that he could conceivably win. This eliminates the need for the Christian conservative vote in a general election. They get sidelined. No one needs to kowtow to their agenda. Nobody will even have to acknowledge it.

I can't express how happy this would make me, and you'd think they would swing immediately to Mitt Romney. He talks family values, he talks pro-life and anti-gay-marriage, but he's got no credibility whatsoever. He governed my home state, for crying out loud. (And did a crappy job of it, I should point out.) He got himself elected by claiming, "I'm not one of them!" and detailing his not-like-them positions, chapter and verse. And now he has to go and un-say all that.

I wouldn't think that would be a huge problem (I'm sure the Christian right could come up with some shit involving the road to Damascus or something) but Romney's a Mormon. And Mormons are to American religion what Vegas is to American cities. Nobody really wants to go that far out, or if they do, they're not going to admit it. Mormons vote like Christian conservatives and they gave up that whole polygamy thing, too! Honest! All kidding aside, I should point out that to their credit, actually act the way the Christians want you to think that they act.

But nobody on the Christian right wants to vote for a Mormon. Just doesn't feel right. The rest of the candidates are a little too wacky or a little too...I don't know, boutique would be a good word. (Duncan Hunter, for example. One-stop shopping for immigration and the military, but anything else? Next question.)

Given the choice, though, I really don't think hard-right Christian leaders are going to sit this baby out. They can't afford to seem irrelevant, even if that's what they've become. Sooner or later they're going to throw their weight behind Romney, or maybe McCain if he gets it together. And they'll make loud declarations about how they're going to compromise to advance Jesus's political agenda, or some crap.

But in reality, they will be irrelevant. And when Romney or Giuliani get the nod for Republican presidential candidate, their key constituents are going to stay home, because in their minds, they won't be voting for "one of them." The volunteer-driven networks who mobilized whole neighborhoods in the Bush elections are going to look pretty anemic in the event of a Romney or a Giuliani campaign.

And that's the thing. There's an enthusiasm gap (not my term) that's widening, not just between Republicans and Democrats but among anybody who isn't supporting Obama or Edwards. People like Hillary, and Rudy, and even Mitt, but nobody is excited about them. Obama especially has managed to defy people who said he was a flash in the pan and has somehow managed to get critical donors to hedge their bets with him.

I should point out that the reason we're talking about the Presidential primaries, and have been doing so since November 8th, is because of 24-hour news networks. These guys need stories. Period. And speculating about who's going to run for President drums up a lot of interest. Developing your own horse race around the whole thing (and using goofy metrics like who's got the most money to measure voter support wa-a-a-ay in advance) is just a way to fill airtime and garner ratings.

None of the candidates really wanted to start this earlier. They'd rather be on message against the President and trying to push their legislative agendas, or for those who aren't in Congress, building up their credibility and name recognition in other ways. This just pushes them to raise more money, sooner, and faster than the other guy. No runner appreciates the judges moving the starting line further and further back, even if they're doing it to everyone.

But that's the way it is. The horse race is on, and name recognition and enthusiasm are being built by media interest and ridiculously gun-jumping polls from Gallup and Quinnipiac. So by January, everyone will have gone through three or four rises and subsequent falls from glory and the outcome's going to be the same as it would have otherwise been. Just a lot more expensive.

But at least it will help us to establish the frontrunners way in advance, and from the way the frontrunners look on the Republican side, the Democrats are in pretty good field position. A strong Democratic candidate can overpower a Republican, regardless of star power, who doesn't have the support of the Christian right. Or even if, say, Giuliani can pull it off, he's not going to be beholden to their agenda.

If I have the fortune to see the nauseating power of the Christian right in America die during my lifetime, I will be a happy man.

Former Senator Mike Gravel: Cah-Ray-Zee

2007-04-26T20:06:00.000-04:00

I'm one of the nerds who turned on the Democratic presidential debate and sat through 90% of it without taking any breaks. I just have a few basic observations.

1) Former Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) is crazier than a chipmunk in a meth lab and quite possibly more senile than certain mineral deposits. Hollering about how he's being ignored, treated like a "potted plant" while he's actually the "senior statesman," and flipping out at strange rhetorical straw men of his own creation. By the end of the debate I was actively rooting for MSNBC to cut back to Gravel to ask him about Sanjaya's elimination from American Idol or whether or not Rosie should be leaving The View. It's a remarkable skill for a politician to be able to dodge any question- Gravel possesses the unique ability to become enraged and personally insulted at any question. I am now actively supporting this man for the same reason I supported Sanjaya- entertainment.

2) Am I the only guy to have noticed Bill Richardson sweating? Like...a lot? If you start your debate off with the words, "Brian, I'm a Westerner," you should fare a little bit better under the hot klieg lights than the two frontrunners (who both come from Chicago.) CNN was predicting a breakout performance from a guy who ended up looking like he was getting polygraphed about the movies he ordered in his hotel room.

3) Chris Dodd cannot actually be a politician. No way in hell. He sounds, acts and looks like what Hollywood thinks a politician should look like. He came right out of central casting. Need proof? Check out his hair. Perfect, shiny, patrician-white hair. But he's got brown eyebrows! I rest my case. Pull back the mirror and you'll find Dustin Hoffman feeding him scripts.

4) Barack Obama...I guess the word "underwhelmed" would be the one for which I'm looking. I was really hoping to get blown away. No such luck, I guess. He still gets my vote. I guess.

5) Dennis Kucinich is like political Raisin Bran, except in reverse- delicious flakes of progressive common sense poisoned by two scoops of Commie. When he pulled out that copy of the Constitution from his pocket I fully expected it to be a Little Red Book. To the credit of a man who looks like a 5'3" Mickey Mouse, he's got an astonishingly hot wife who's a full head taller than him. And he knows how good he's got it, too- watch the replay. During the mingle-time at the end of the debate, Denny makes a grab for the gray area between his wife's lower back and...well, what lies below her lower back. (And to her credit, she politely brushes his hand away.)

6) Joe Biden gets the best one-liner of the night. When asked in a lengthy Brian Williams question if he had the ability to control his gaffes, mischaracterizations and flat-out mistakes (Winston's still rolling in his grave, guy) he responded, "Yes." Dead silence. Slight, smug Biden grin. Howls of laughter. Williams moves to the next question. Score.

7) John Edwards remains pretty, but...I'm just not sure I'm onboard with much else. He's just really charming and friendly. That's about it, it seems. And you lose the ability to pull out the "two Americas" speech after you consult for a hedge fund. Tsk tsk.

8) Hillary did all right. If two things happened, I would support her. A) She became electable against a moderate Republican. She's not. B) I got over my smouldering distaste for her which has been bred since she became such a consummate compromise artist in the Senate. It would be mature of me, and she's been doing the most good she can for the most people. But I have so little confidence left in people who have spent time in Washington, especially since I've begun to work in government. The longer you spend legislating, the further you remove yourself from reality, and the more you rely upon testimony and media reports to consolidate your position on the issues. She's the only candidate I've met in person, and I think she might be the most....professional of the bunch. But I don't think people should fault me for wanting someone in the White House who doesn't know where all the lightswitches are already.

Anyway. Tonight's take-home message: Please give money to Senator Mike Gravel's campaign, in as significant quantities as you can afford. It is the absolute best use of your entertainment dollar I can imagine.

Hold On A Minute

2007-01-02T18:39:00.000-05:00

We ask police officers to do a lot in this country. They're required to do everything from writing parking tickets to charging into a criminal's gunfire to rescue a hostage. We always want them around, and if we need them, they never arrive fast enough. But if we see their cruisers in the neighborhood too often, it feels like a "police state" and we get offended.

Before we let someone become a cop, we perform lengthy background checks and, in some states, lie-detector exams. We put them through months, often years of training, on everything from shooting a pistol to diversity awareness. We hold them to vastly higher standards of personal and professional conduct, and we depend on them in our darkest hours. And if we get into a traffic accident that was someone else's fault, we can be expected to trumpet a cop's credibility to the heavens if they happened to witness it.

And yet, as soon as a mistake is made, and an unarmed person is killed by police officers, everything goes out the window. The cops must be brainless, musclebound bozos with no respect for the law or human morality. The term "police brutality" is instantly deployed, and suddenly, the cops are a metaphor for all of the larger ills of society. We can't have them fired or imprisoned fast enough, and this is all before it even goes to trial.

In one sentence, it infuriates me that we hold our police officers to lofty standards of credibility and suddenly abandon it as soon as there are any questions about that officer's conduct.

Are there bad cops? Hell yes. Should they get crucified in the press and should they suffer criminal penalties? Again, hell yes. See the files of Abner Louima or Rodney King. Cops like that deserve whatever they get, for betraying the public's trust.

But when something like what happened in New York or New Orleans occurs- where the facts are hazy and the situation is clearly volatile- why do we automatically assume the cops are at fault? Simply because the victims weren't armed? Cops are trained and retrained throughout their career to recognize the signs of someone who's about to pull a gun or otherwise attack them. Mistakes get made, yes- but when a cop makes a horrible mistake, he's reacting to something else that's happening. Reckless negligence or obvious intent to murder someone are pretty easy to detect.

How easy, you might say? In 1972, Patrolmen Phillip Cardillo and Vito Navarra, two New York City police officers, received an "officer down" call at 102 W. 116th in Harlem. Nobody ever drives slowly to a 10-13. They arrived and saw that it was a Nation of Islam mosque from which numerous fake 10-13 calls had been made by the Black Liberation Army, a radical group formed during the civil rights era. Still, they went inside and heard sounds of a scuffle.

It was an ambush. Dozens of men assaulted both officers, cutting off the door and blocking any hope of escape. Navarra and other responding officers were beaten savagely as hundreds of people stormed the block. Police cars were flipped. A reporter was covered in lighter fluid and set on fire. And Officer Phillip Cardillo was shot with his own gun in the mosque to which he'd been lured. It took him a week to die. The police commissioner later apologized to the Nation of Islam for the intrusion into their building. The NYPD was never "granted" access to the crime scene because the commissioner (in a flagrant untruth) said it had been illegal for the officers to enter a house of worship. No one was ever convicted of Cardillo's death.

You see, that is what I would call an obvious intent to murder somebody. And yet, when a city is coming unglued in the aftermath of a natural disaster, we assume that seven decorated police officers were thirsting for blood when they shot that poor man in New Orleans.

Jesus Christ. When things haven't been fully investigated and the truth is still murky, police officers deserve something approximating the presumption of innocence that we supposedly provide everyone else.

Messing With Texas

2006-12-28T14:31:00.000-05:00

I'm split on whether or not it's okay for the University of Texas to have all those statues of Confederate leaders on campus. I think that people who bitch about a big statue of Robert E. Lee should calm down and be quiet. On the other hand, I think a statue of Jefferson Davis might be a little much. So why the difference?

I think it's because people aren't nostalgic for the values of the Confederacy, nor do they want to go back to that time period. Rather, their ancestors fought and died in large numbers to protect something, a culture, a society, in which they deeply believed. Robert E. Lee seems to commemorate that history and that sacrifice, whereas Jefferson Davis seems to more concretely represent the outdated values.

Let it not be said that I'm all right with Confederate ideals or the glorification thereof. (I spent four hours yesterday watching Gone With The Wind, though.) I just don't think you should go to the campus of the University of Texas and be shocked or offended by statues of Davis or Lee. Like...you were expecting...?

In closing. Jefferson Davis? Wellll.... General Lee? Definitely.

Holy Crap.

2006-11-08T18:32:00.000-05:00

It's been two years already?

Politically speaking, it's felt like a lot longer. Iraq got worse. Partisanship got worse. Bush's strategy, to pander to his base and stay the course in Iraq brought him to the inevitable, unalterable destination- defeat.

I don't have real words to describe this, but I about broke into hysterical tears of happiness when I heard that Rumsfeld was stepping down in the face of the inevitable Democratic onslaught. And then I heard "It's over, the Democrats won" out of the President's mouth. (More on that below.)

I'm not even ecstatic, I'm just satisfied. Do we remember how crushed we all were, two years ago? The talk of moving to Canada, of disgust with our fellow countrymen, of futile, unbridled rage. I wonder how the Republicans feel?

Probably a lot like we did. Although they're doing a fairly decent job of eating crow. They had a hell of a lot more warning than we did in '04, since the weight of the electorate was clearly leaning in this direction for a matter of weeks. Their fears were confirmed last night, so I don't think it came as any huge surprise. They lost a few heartbreakers, and their hopes of holding the Senate to a 50-50 tie are flickering and fading under the specter of an Allen recount. I've never been politically active in the era of a Democratic Congress. This should be interesting.

The Weekly Standard is chock-full of election night tales of woe, if you want to exercise your constitutional right to schadenfreude. Watching Fox News today (ironically) I saw George Bush say the words, "It's over. The Democrats won," and couldn't stop grinning. I should point out that this happened in a room full of arch-conservative military police officers. Also, their boss had just resigned. I left, rather quickly.

But even they could probably understand my giddy confusion. This President has built a political legacy on the solid bedrock of denying the blatantly obvious. I saw a new man on television today, who said he'd work with us because we controlled the House of Representatives. To be honest, I almost thought he would declare martial law before allowing a Democratic majority to take over the House (and, pray God, the Senate.) But he didn't. He conceded defeat, he was relatively mature about it, and he stood up in front of a TV camera to acknowledge reality. He acknowledged what has been abundantly obvious for over a year- people think he and his buddies suck.

I actually walked by his house last night, through Lafayette Park, in the cool Washington rain. The flag was still flying above the White House as Bush awaited the election returns, and the camera crews had decided there were more ratings to be found in the Democratic parties than the Republican wakes. Inside, the most powerful man in the world was watching as Rove's tinted political windows, shielding him from the enormity of his mistakes, were torn away on CNN. I almost felt bad for the man.

HAH! Just kidding.

One point in the Republican column. They're not talking about moving to...damn, I can't even think of a country more conservative than this one. Saudia Arabia? The Vatican? Russia? Anyway, they're not talking about leaving the country, staging a coup (probably more up their alley) or advocating any other kind of departure from civil society.

It's an exciting time to be an American. It'd be more exciting if a Democratic Congress was starting out with the opportunity to build something, instead of the task of digging ourselves out of someone else's hole.

North Korea and the Deficit

2006-07-10T18:44:00.000-04:00

North Korea, for all the trouble it's causing, is making life very easy for comedians. The favorite joke is that while Iraq (no weapons, minimal threat) got a full-scale invasion, Iran (moderate threat, developing weapons) is just getting a lot of diplomacy thrown at it, and the North Koreans (in possession of nuclear weapons, testing delivery systems, major threat) require a concerted effort, on our part, to even assemble a strongly-worded protest when they cook off a couple of bottle rockets over Japan.

(Full disclosure, I just got XM Satellite Radio for my car, and I've been listening to the comedy channels, on average, around two hours a day. They're pretty helpful when you're driving for extended periods of time.)

So we all get a good laugh. The Bush administration is so silly! They attack the wrong countries! Another favorite joke is about how Kim Jong-Il, like Rodney Dangerfield, doesn't get no respect. He builds nukes, threatens World War III, shoots off missiles and kidnaps random Japanese citizens. And we're committed to negotiating with him. Poor guy can't get any attention.

The fact is that Kim Jong-Il knows that he has a lot more leverage than Saddam ever had. He's got nuclear weapons (although, by all accounts, they're still a little too big and clunky to be effectively delivered by rockets or aircraft) as well as an enormous military. These guys have the ability to rain 100,000 artillery shells an hour on Seoul, as well as a million-man army, a vast network of underground bases, and command-and-control systems designed to defeat the U.S. military's electronic surveillance capabilities.

Let's review. Enormous, scary military. Nuclear capability. Budding intercontinental rocketry program. Tough to surveil due to underground sites. These guys are bad news. And KCNA, North Korea's propaganda Wal-Mart, likes to threaten nuclear holocaust, total battle, and World War III. Why have we not wiped these guys off the map? And why are we getting wiped off the map in Iraq?

The answer is that North Korea can materially damage our vital national interests. It is in no one's interest to see the Korean Peninsula go up in nuclear smoke. (Where would we get our Hyundais?) South Korea is a vital trading partner, not to mention Japan. And our relations with China, no matter how a war turned out, would inevitably suffer, which may not be that bad diplomatically but would have ugly consequences for the American economy. So while North Korea would undoubtedly lose a war (if they went nuclear, we would retaliate) and their country would fall apart at its starving seams, the consequences would be entirely too terrible to contemplate for our country.

North Korea keeps demanding one basic thing- security for their regime. Kim Jong-Il is a paranoid psychotic who actually abducted Japanese actors, via his special forces troopers, to force them to act in (awful) movies he makes himself. He demands non-aggression pacts, which the U.S. can't honor because it would bind our hands if he started pulling anything more ridiculous inside his little nuclear treehouse. North Korea's primary demand is, let us stay in power.

The thing is, he's not crazy and their country isn't crazy. But they really want us to believe that it is. It's good political thinking, actually. If your opponent thinks that you're totally insane, he's just going to go attack you, since he has no chance. If he thinks you're totally rational, he might still attack you, or otherwise exploit you, because he can take advantage of your weaknesses. In the mindset of deterrence posture, being just a little crazy keeps you unpredictable, and therefore, difficult to take advantage of.

The North Koreans don't want to be boxed in by our demands anymore (and our primary demand is, don't go to war.) You'd think this would be simple. They don't go to war against South Korea (or anybody else,) we're happy to let them stay in power. But the X-factor is Kim Jong-Il's itching, burning case of paranoia and megalomania. He wants to be a member of the nuclear club, to have a button to put his finger on. And he wants to be able to make threats, even though his country is starving and he has to rely on counterfeiting and drug dealing to fund his military machine. So we can't rule out kicking his ass.

But they guy is gonna die anyway. Whether a smart bomb does it, or coronary artery disease from the expensive imported foods that he eats, Kim Jong-Il can't escape death. And he's too paranoid to appoint an heir apparent, since that person would become an immediate threat in his mind (and maybe in reality.) Kim holds enormous power, and would create an even-more-enormous power vacuum after his death, which the rest of the world sincerely hopes a better alternative would fill.

The North Koreans have nukes. No amount of intervention is going to change that. If we give them a reason to use them, they just might do it, too. But the only way they're going to do that is if Kim Jong-Il says so. So we have to play nice until the guy croaks, because going to war against a nuclear and conventional power like North Korea would be (even with our enormous military) incredibly costly. This policy of hands-off, wait-and-see, actually does make sense.

Unless.

North Korea needs money. We've been over this. They need it bad, and they're willing to do things like counterfeit and run drugs to get it. They've even got their hands in kidnapping and extortion. It's the world's first gangster nation. They'll sell anything to get their hands on cash, and that could easily include the nuclear weapons they've claimed to have built. They could become a nuclear K-Mart (a favorite grim joke of international relations types.) And that would be unacceptable. But are they doing this? Do they have buyers? Do they even have anything worth buying?

So we find ourselves coming back to one of my favorite complaints. We're sinking enormous- ENORMOUS- amounts of money into tax cuts for the super-wealthy and the war in Iraq. If we were to, say, remove the now-nearly-permanent tax cut and drastically scale back operations in Iraq (where it's becoming abundantly obvious that our presence perpetuates, rather than suppresses, the insurgency) we would have a lot of cash available to do three things that really need to get done.

1) Pay down the deficit. Oh, God, I don't even need to go into detail here. The Bush economic side effects are like Reaganomics but even more retarded. We're spending money we don't have and treating our international credit rating like a puppy treats a hardwood floor. If you support this administration because you've been living under a rock for the last six years, consider this: the war in Iraq is being paid for with money borrowed from shining beacons of international morality like, I don't know, China. Yep. That M-16 that's firing at Iraq insurgents got bought with yuan, boy.

2) Secure the homeland. It's not happening for a lot of different reasons. Some of them include the behavior of the recipients of federal homeland security grants- police and fire departments tend to spend the money on pretty toys like command vehicles and SWAT teams, rather than on the training and specialized equipment they'd need to deal with WMD attacks. But security for our seaports, our rail and public transit systems, and our borders (don't get me started) has been woefully underfunded. Airports still aren't properly secured, even given America's propensity for defending ourselves against the attacks that have already happened. The next one will arrive through a venue that a $2.1 million mobile command center that gets 247 movie channels cannot block.

3) Return our intelligence agencies to worldwide prominence. The CIA's analytical capabilities have been gutted by a power grab from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. One of the NSA's hands is trying to fend off Congress while the other is trying to sort through billions- literally billions- of electronic intercepts across the globe, and then (through some act of God) make sense of them. The DNI is trying to create their own in-house intel agency instead of forcing everyone else to work together. And the FBI's attempts at collecting domestic intelligence still get drawn into the stovepipe of their own bureaucracy instead of being properly shared with CIA or NSA. The war on terror will be won only when we can have people on the ground, infiltrating terrorist groups and collecting HUMINT. Fancy satellites and UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles) aren't going to do the job, especially in places like hermetically-sealed North Korea. We're not going to get our way in the Korean Peninsula by force of arms alone. We'll need the old CIA, the kind of guys who (while I'm not encouraging this behavior wholesale) started revolutions and infiltrated governments.

Enormous operations like Iraq waste money and lives while creating abundant reasons for new terrorists to join the cause. A low-intensity shadow war would give us the opportunity to suppress the Hydra-headed, decentralized al Qaeda that military expeditions will only strengthen. And it'd be exponentially cheaper. Can you imagine the things the CIA could do with 10% of the money we're spending on Iraq? We could have a Guantanamo Bay in every strip mall!

Okay, maybe not such a good idea to go that far. But I think the point is made. Iraq and tax cuts are sapping money away from an actual defense of the homeland, and if places like North Korea decide to start selling nukes to terrorists, we have no way of detecting, deterring, or defending against utter mayhew. The current administration has chosen a path of unnecessary strength and unaffordable weakness.