The End Of An Era

Welcome to 2017! As a part of my "goals" for this year, I'm going to try to write a bit more on here. Nothing outrageous; this blog will still not be a "daily" blog like some I follow, nor even a "weekly" blog, like others. But I am going to try to head out, from time to time, into the world of sharing my thoughts and view points on this world we live in. I also promise that most of my posts will be rather small, at least compared to the five to ten thousand word tomes that I published prior to the end of 2016. Not all subjects require the attention that Trump's victory in the US Presidential Election did, and not all subjects captivate me emotionally like the Cubs World Series win did. So you're safe in that regard.

Today, I'm going to reflect a bit on the impending end of the Obama administration, I think. But wherever this post ends, I'm going to start here, with a quote from Chuck Klosterman's most recent book, "But What If We're Wrong?": 

"History is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining." ~ Klosterman, pg. 91

Now mull that line over, and then compare it to another cliche take on history:

"History is written by the victors." ~ Winston Churchill 

Many people probably know the second quote, but I would imagine that the vast majority of people under the age of 40 who know the quote wouldn't know who to attribute it to. Churchill is widely considered right in his take, and certainly the evidence post World War II would indicate that he was right. History texts the world over portray the rise of Totalitarianism in Europe, the rise of Imperial Japan, and the ultimate fall of Nazi Germany, Japan and the Axis nations in a relatively consistent way. They all were power hungry, gained power, wanted more, marginalized (and murdered) people because they weren't "like" them, and ultimately their evil led them to a point of conflict with the Allies, who overtook them and restored the "right" world order. Which is Democracy if you read Western texts. And is probably not exactly Democracy if you read current Russian texts, and assuredly not Democracy if you read Chinese texts. So we get the point; the USA, Western Europe, the (then) USSR, and China prevailed. They not only got to dictate the terms of surrender, but also how things would be remembered moving forward.

This is an especially important concept now, as it relates to World War II. We are at the end of the World War II era. It was years ago that we ended the World War II era actively; George H.W. Bush was the last prominent American leader who served in the war, and his term ended twenty four years ago. Now, we are heading towards the final steps of this era, as that Greatest Generation passes on, and leaves the world to the ensuing generations. The Vietnam generation never got a conclusion the way that the prior generation did; the war in Vietnam "ended," and Saigon fell. Depending on what objectives you believe the US was after we either won, or lost, or neither. But nobody left that era feeling the way (I imagine) we collectively did after V-E and V-J day. The post Cold War generation felt good for awhile, but 9-11-01 brought a collective understanding that in a Uni-Polar world there are far more difficult things to deal with than a Soviet USSR. We are now nearing sixteen years in our longest war, the "War on Terror," understanding that it is a war we cannot win (at least through conventional means), but cannot afford to lose. 

So what happens to history when there are no victors? In a sense, I am arguing that the last big piece of major geopolitical history was written in the immediate aftermath of World War II. That history has been seventy one years in the writing, and as the last of the generation who fought in that war and lived in that depression pass on, we will continue to learn from that history. Honestly, we will continue to modify it to teach us the lessons we feel are important at the time, and to make it fit with our active world view. But we, the Western world, feel confident in ourselves as the "victors" of World War II. There are different view points on that war, but none that carry much weight around the world. It is settled, at least for the near term. 

The last seventy one years are not so settled. And that leads me to my thoughts last night as I watched President Obama's farewell address, all the while contemplating what the next four years will be like under a man who is (nearly) unquestionably considered the most unqualified person to hold the office of the Presidency in modern times. And that, ultimately, leads me to the first quote, from Klosterman. History may be written by the victors, and there is no guarantee that the victor's history is accurate, but at least it is somewhat definitive and agreed upon. In the modern age, history is never written, but it is defined. And Klosterman's point is frighteningly right: it is often defined by people who don't know or understand what it is they are defining. 

This matters quite a bit in this day and age. People are quick to jump to conclusions, and are slow to consider that they may have received bad information, so long as that bad information fits their worldview. We live in an age where whatever it is that makes you comfortable, and that you believe to be true, you can find it somewhere. You can find a website that will make you feel confident in your beliefs, no matter how out of mainstream they might be. You can find a news channel that feeds you the same viewpoints you have, all under the guise of "news." And you can find support to demonize people, institutions, and positions that are different than your viewpoints of the world. 

I often hear from people who cannot seem to STAND President Obama. In fact, I would argue that Barack Obama is the most controversial President ever. I don't think that is a function of his actual administration; rather, I firmly believe that it is a direct function of a fully realized 24 hour "news" cycle, always looking for ratings, always looking for controversy to drive those ratings, and, above all, always looking to stir up the people who identify most closely with the view points that the "news" media is presenting. We have fully arrived in an era when the top journalistic institutions of the past century and a half are considered "fake" news. Many people do not believe in the journalistic integrity of The New York Times, The Washington Post, or The Wall Street Journal. They view all three publications as a part of the "liberal media," ignoring the very real difference between the news rooms in those agencies and their editorial boards (which, in and of themselves, vary drastically in terms of political ideology). Many people seemingly don't even understand the difference between an editorial piece and a news piece. Instead, they turn to MSNBC, if they are "liberal," or, more frequently, to Fox News (if they are conservative). If Fox News isn't extreme enough in their viewpoints (which is scary enough), they turn to Drudge Report, Breitbart, or whatever is sent to them via Facebook. When they hear that about "fake news," which permeates (and, indeed, makes up) Drudge, Breitbart and the "news" stories that fill up their Facebook feed, these are the people who agree there is fake news, and then point to the Associated Press as an example. Simply put, these individuals believe in the world as they see it, and anything (news, academia, research) that doesn't fit that world view is instantly discredited. 

These are the people who cannot stand President Obama, and who say they cannot wait for his last day. These people often times will agree that Trump isn't perfect, but "at least he isn't as bad as Obama." Here's the key: ask those people to name five things that Obama or his administration has done that has made their lives worse in the last eight years. They will very quickly jump to the Affordable Care Act (they'll call it "Obamacare" because it fuels their dislike more). They might name the Iran nuclear deal. They may talk about taxes. They will struggle mightily to name five things. And they will know almost nothing about the things they do say. If you try to drill down (for instance, "what about the ACA has made things worse for you?") they will deflect and change the subject, or they will spout a Sean Hannity talking point. They will just know in their heart that Obama did it, and it made their life worse. If you try to engage these people in conversations about these things they will quickly try to deflect from the subject, or call you a "liberal," with the same tone they would have if they were calling you the queen mother word. And, if you know anything at all about any of the subjects they bring up, you'll leave shaking your head, wondering how we got to a point as society when feelings and gut instinct became more important and more real than evidence and intelligence. 

Donald Trump is the end result of this new age of "understanding." Trump feeds people lies, constantly, and many of them know it. But he gives them hope. That hope is very simple, based on many of my conversations with Trump supporters. They hope that he will take them back to a better day. It's right there in his campaign slogan: Make America Great Again. People who jumped on board with that can't tell you what the Obama Administration did to make America not great. They just know it isn't great. And so they look the other way when he blatantly attacks the press, like he did in today's press conference. They will nod in agreement when he says that The National Enquirer is "real news" and CNN or The New York Times is "fake news." They look the other way when he uses his position, as he already has, to benefit his family, and to benefit his business. They look the other way when he says that he is going to "attack Wall Street," and then puts multiple senior executives from Goldman Sachs into his administration. They, inexplicably, cheer his statement and then don't hold him accountable when he doesn't follow through.

I cannot help but believe that a large part of this is racist in nature, as it relates to Obama, sexist in nature, as it related to Clinton, and xenophobic, homophobic, racist and sexist (among other things, I'm sure) as it relates to everyone from John Kasich, Jeb Bush and to the left politically. I cannot prove these beliefs on a large scale, but it is nearly the only hypothesis that makes some level of sense to me. And, if there is any level of truth to that hypothesis, then Trump is a better option, simply because he's a white male. And, if that is the case, it becomes truly scary because it means that an incompetent (at best), self-centered (at worst) man is about to lead our country wherever he wants. And, if the media tries to call him on it, people will just say it's the "liberal media" saying it, and point to their Facebook news feed for proof. 

Here's what I believe about President Obama. I believe that he, like all Presidents before him, was imperfect for the job, a job which with each passing year becomes increasingly complex and increasingly impossible. I believe he is a good man, with good morals, and by all evidence is a great husband and a great father. I believe that he tried the best he could, and did some things well, and others not as well. I believe there are many things he wishes he could undo, and a lot of things that he wishes he could do more of. I believe that he is relieved to leave the office, and as terrified as the majority of Americans are about what is to come. I didn't agree with all of what he did, or all of what he stands for, but I have respect for the man, and appreciated his efforts to serve the country to the best of his ability. I felt a lot better about our country and our future with him and his administration at the wheel than I do with 1/20/17 bearing down on us. I felt a lot better with George W. Bush and his administration too, lest you think I'm a "bleeding heart liberal." If you cannot see the possible disaster that Trump is poised to bring, regardless of who you voted for, I don't know what to tell you. We just must live in different dimensions of the Universe (although, if you blindly believe in Trump you probably outright do not believe in the possibilities of different dimensions ... but I digress). 

We live in an era where the people who define what is functionally considered "true" regarding nearly everything ... global warming ... the Iranian nuclear program ... the efficacy of The Affordable Care Act ... are people who are ignorant to actual research, actual evidence, actual facts. That is how we end up with a megalomaniac like Donald Trump as our President, while the same people who cheer Trump demonize a President, in Obama, who led the country out of the worst recession since the Great Depression, gave over twenty million more Americans health insurance, and led the military in executing a mission to kill the man who masterminded the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Those people accept Obama as damn near evil, and look at Trump and celebrate him. 

"History is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining." Indeed. 

The POV Post-Election Analysis - Trumpocalypse Now

Twice in one year. Can you believe it? I'm writing something for the second time in 2016! Things are trending up! I may even have one more post before we ring in 2017, on a far more enjoyable subject that this one, but I believed this one was more important to get out, if only for my sanity and because I've had a few people ask me to write it. In my defense, I started thinking about this post in the weeks leading up to the election. I think my analysis of the Presidential Election this year was relatively spot on: Clinton was a favorite, varying from a slight to heavy favorite throughout the year leading up to election day, but Trump wasn't "dead." Far from it, his position was stronger than either Romney or McCain's, relatively speaking. We'll get into the reasons for that below. The days leading up to the election I had many people telling me there was "no way" he would win; I responded that his odds were better than the odds were for the Chicago Cubs to come back and win the World Series when they were down three games to one. The moral of the story is this: there is a reason they "play the game."

The FBI "reopening" their inquiry into Clinton's email was the type of late in the game event that the Clinton campaign wasn't prepared for, whether the FBI's actions were intentionally political or not. As I woke up on 11/9/16, into a world where President Elect Donald J. Trump was a real thing, not a punch line, I shot off a series of tweets, giving my "hot takes." I did that, more than anything, so that I'd have a launching point for this post. Then a month flew by. It seems like it has been so much longer than a month and three days since election day. But here I am, ready to finally lay this post out there for those who care to read it. Before I really delve in, let me tell you a few things.

1. Some of you, perhaps all of you, who read this will get upset. I'm going to call it how I see it. I'm not the smartest person in the world, nor the most "in the know." But my undergraduate degree is in Political Science, and I'm still relatively well connected with that world of study. I understand how news gets slanted, and I understand the difference between an "opinion" column and actual news reporting. You can choose to disregard that if you want to, but I don't pull my analysis from the fake news that infects Facebook and the rest of the internet, nor from the partisan fantasy world of Fox News and/or MSNBC. I follow news sources that 90% or more of the world considers reliable. If you choose not to that is 100% your choice, and I respect that. But realize that if you take the position that news outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal (among others), as well as the academics who study politics for a living, are not real or are "in on the conspiracy" ... well, you are statistically as significant as those people who believe Adam walked in the Garden of Eden with T-Rex, that we faked the moon landing, and that global warming is a hoax. You don't believe in facts, research, or anything that you don't want to. I get it. We all have a choice to make: believe in journalistic and academic ethics or not. I choose to be a careful consumer, but a consumer nonetheless. You can choose to be in a group where most of your peers probably believe we live in the Matrix.

2. I am not a Clinton supporter or apologist. I voted for Gary Johnson and the Libertarian ticket because I couldn't believe that a plurality of  primary voters in this country left us with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our major party choices. I also voted Libertarian because in the DEEP RED state of Indiana, my vote for Johnson was every bit as valuable as anyone else's vote. We were going Trump no matter what. The majority of this country said that neither Clinton, nor Trump was a good candidate for President and then went out and voted for one of the two. Until we start pushing the envelop and insisting on a third option, we will continue to get these types of choices. So I decided I could afford a protest vote. Had my state been close, had there even been a chance that my state would have been close, I would have begrudgingly cast my vote for Hillary Clinton as the least worst option. But I was perfectly happy to be able to vote for a third party and not have to support either of the flawed candidates that the primary season gave us. And, for the record, I voted in the Republican Primary and supported Kasich. Here is to hoping he will mount a primary challenge to Trump in 2020.

3. If you didn't vote in the primaries, you should have. That's how you can participate in an attempt to avoid a Clinton v Trump catastrophe. But if you didn't vote in the general election, then as far as I'm concerned, you actively decided to give up your right to complain. Democracy is a participatory process. You're not going to find me complaining about the Electoral College; it was the system given to us by our "iconic" founding fathers. Yes, it was because they didn't trust us, the "common white man" to decide on president, let alone everyone else who they didn't want to ever vote. But it's the rules of the game. Complaining about Clinton winning the popular vote and not winning the election is like complaining that your baseball team had the most hits, but still lost the game. You play by the rules of the game: hits, not runs, EC votes, not popular vote. But if you don't play the game, which in this case means you didn't vote, then you have no right to this conversation. You chose to not participate in our democracy and gave up your right to complain. Whatever happens, sit back, enjoy the next four years regardless of what happens, and stop complaining. You disenfranchised yourself.

4. If nothing else, read this article that gives you the full quote of Gregg Popovich's take on this election. This is real; this is where we are at with our country. We elected a guy who says and does things we would NEVER accept out of our own children. Good job America.

With all of that said, this is going to be my analysis of how we got here, what it means, and what my "take aways" are. Let's start with a simple fact, brought to us by exit polling on election day:

More than 60% of people who voted in this election believed that Donald Trump was unfit to be President. 

Hold on, let's get one more fact brought to us by the vote count, as of today:

More than 46% of people who voted for President voted for Donald Trump.

Let's let that sink in for a second. That means that over six percent of people who voted for Trump believe that he is unfit to be President. Not that he was probably a little over his head, or wasn't their top choice ... he was considered unfit, unqualified to be president. Using a little back of the napkin math here, that means that roughly Eight Million, Five Hundred Forty Four Thousand, Three Hundred people who voted for Trump thought that the man was not qualified to be President. Who knows what led those people to vote for a man they felt was unfit to hold the most important position in the world, but boy would I like to know. Because I, for the life of me, can't imagine what logical, rational reason their could be.

Now let's delve a little deeper into the question about how Trump won. I hear quite a bit from Trump supporters that he won because he "brought out" the vote. Or, if they are being a bit more honest with their thoughts, they'll say he brought out the "Reagan Democrats," which is really code for "White Working Class America." You hear a lot about this in places like where my wife grew up, in Macomb County Michigan. Well, let's look at actual data to see if this narrative of Trump "bringing out the base" is reality or fake news fantasy.

As of today, Trump has just under 62,800,000 popular votes; by comparison, Romney had just under 60,800,000 in 2012. Promising in terms of validating this argument. But let's delve a little deeper. What you find when you go state by state is a much more muddled picture. Some states, like Pennsylvania, seem to agree with this narrative to a point: Trump drew out around 2.912 million voters to Romney's 2.680 million. Others, like Wisconsin, go against that narrative; Trump took home around 70,000 fewer votes in Wisconsin than Romney did. The aforementioned Michigan? Pretty close, with Trump having around 150,000 more votes than Romney. In other areas of the country Trump held steady where he should have gained (Texas), made a small margin up (New York) or lost a ton of ground compared to Romney (California). Simply put, this narrative isn't very accurate at all.

A far more accurate narrative, however, and the one I would posit as being the major factor in electing Trump is this: Democrats stayed home. But not nationally, just in crucial areas. Let's look at raw vote totals from the last three elections (keeping in mind that going much further back gets tougher to compare as it doesn't factor in population increases).

• Democrats: 2008 - 66,882,230, 2012 - 65,455,010, 2016 - 65,432,202
• Republicans: 2008 - 58,343,671, 2012 - 60,771,703, 2016 - 62,793,872

You see these totals holding mostly steady for the Democrats, while steadily increasing for the GOP. But the key is where the votes were and were not. As we noted above, Trump had some increases in crucial states, but Clinton had major increases in states that did not matter. In Texas she picked up over half a million votes from where Obama was in 2012. But in Pennsylvania she was down over 150,000 votes from where Obama was. In Michigan she lost nearly 300,000 votes from where Obama was, and in Wisconsin, where Trump did worse than Romney? Roughly 240,000 fewer votes for Clinton than Obama had in 2012. The map didn't break well for her, but she also didn't campaign much in Michigan until the last week, and didn't campaign at all in Wisconsin. She was fixated on expanding the map to states like Georgia and Arizona, and expanding the Democrat's footprint in places like North Carolina. Meanwhile everyone laughed at Trump for campaigning across Clinton's "Blue Wall"... but he knew that his long shot presidency included two things. The first was picking up a small number of more voters in those areas than Romney did. As we've established above, he did that. What was the second thing?

Simply put, he needed Democrats to stay home. With more nuance, however, he needed people who didn't like Clinton to stay home. They didn't have to like him, at least not enough to vote for him, but they needed to not like her enough to not vote ... or to be one of the eight million plus who voted for a man who was unfit in their eyes to be President. In this regard, Trump won. But how did he win? He did it in a number of ways, and in doing so he proved how efficiently and effectively our entire political system could be gamed. 

First, he established early and often who it was he wanted his "base" to be. He actively and aggressively courted uneducated white voters with promises of things going back to how they were before, back when America was "great." This message was particularly powerful behind the curtain, inside of Clinton's "Blue Wall" in the upper mid-west. This area hasn't been "great" since the 1960s, and people still cling to the idea that it can be for the country and the world what it was in the two decades following the end of World War Two. Of course, this is a fantasy of the highest order, equal with believing that spewing CO2 into the atmosphere isn't going to have a negative impact on the world's temperature. But these people don't care. They are desperate for something, anything, and ultimately, anyone who will tell them that it will all be all right again. That the jobs will come back. That the wages will come back. That the "middle class" existence for a skilled laborer who didn't graduate high school will come back. I won't spend too much time delving into this, but simply put this cannot and will not happen, regardless of who is president, because the world is fundamentally different than it was in the decades following WWII. Back then we were the world's lone super power, and the only major nation that had left the previous decade unscathed in our homeland (short of Pearl Harbor, of course). We had the industry, it was already fired up from our war production, and everyone else's economy was in disarray. We had an economic monopoly on the world, and we prospered accordingly. Those circumstances are as far from today's world as transportation today is from transportation in the 1600s. So, in sum, Trump played to his desired base by telling them lies, sweet little lies, that gave them hope for a future that he knows will never come. But, of course, the future doesn't need to come ... the idea of the future simply needed to carry him to the White House. And the upper mid-west, the rust belt, was an area that was particularly vulnerable to this fantasy. 

Second, Trump could only pull this off if his opponents were divided, as they were in the primary. He needed them to be unable or unwilling to call him on his lies and factual inaccuracies for fear of upsetting the very base he was building, who they, too, would need if there were to win in November. After accomplishing this with very little resistance (major kudos here for John Kasich for refusing to budge and give in to Trump), Trump then needed another miracle. He needed the Democrats to nominate someone as unlikable and flawed as he was. Fortunately for him, the Democrats were so thin that the best they could come up with was the second most unlikable presidential nominee in history behind him. And all the Democrats could do to try to avoid this was run an aged socialist against her. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: the two most unlikable, flawed candidates in modern political presidential history. And remember, likability matters quite a bit. Obama was likable; he seemed like a guy you'd shoot hoops with or watch the NCAA tournament with. George W. was likable; he was a guy you'd have a beer with. Bill Clinton? Likable, especially when compared with George H.W. and Bob Dole. Reagan? Likable, because he communicated warmly and optimistically. Likability matters, so when you are considered by the majority of the voting population to be unlikable and unqualified to be President? Well then, you better have someone who is nearly equally unlikable and considered to be unqualified as well. Trump won the veritable lottery here. 

Third, Trump needed to appeal to a portion of the voting public that neither side had appealed to in some time, at least since the 1960s and 1970s, and that was the racist, sexist, xenophobic base. He went after this voting block with extreme intensity, from the day he launched his campaign. Be it the wall to keep out Latinos, a ban to keep out the Muslims, or his routine insinuations that Hillary couldn't do the job because she was a woman, Trump appealed to another block of white voters in a way that they hadn't been appealed to in a generation, since George Wallace ran for President in 1968. This approach helped him in two ways. First, it brought out voters to the polls for him who otherwise were likely to stay home because the major parties didn't buy into their world view. Secondly, it spoke to some Obama voters who were okay with a black man as President, but still had a misogynist view point and couldn't take the jump to a female candidate. Those voters didn't necessarily have to vote Trump, although likely some of them did. They could just stay home as well. Trump's margins didn't need to be big, and they weren't. He was beaten soundly in the popular vote, but he held on to narrow margins where it mattered. A relatively small number of voters voting for him or staying home rather than voting for Clinton benefited him disproportionately. 

Fourth, Trump needed to not be caught peddling in lies, and to not be viewed poorly for peddling in fears. In this regard he won big going away, for one simple reason: every time the media called him on his lies, tried to fact check him, or to hold him accountable for fear mongering, he simply changed the story. Often to make the story about the media's "unfair" coverage of the election. What this showed was how many voters were able to be seemingly held captive by his lies and his efforts to play to their fears. This happened because, sadly, his worldview fit many of their worldviews. When he said incendiary things about Islam and talked of Muslim registries and Muslim bans, it played to a portion of the population's fears. This isn't a new strategy; Hitler did the same thing with Judaism and the Jews, and the US did it in the same era with the Japanese and our internment camps. What was amazing was how defensive Trump supporters got if you acknowledged the stark similarities to what Trump was saying and prior instances of xenophobia in history. Playing to fears, coupled with an amazing ability to lie, gave Trump an edge. His ability to pin it back on the media anytime that they tried to hold him accountable is what should scare everyone moving forward. 

Finally, he needed a miracle. That miracle was something that would pull the polls close enough that they were within the margin of error. Close enough that people who despised Clinton would come out and vote for him, but with enough of a margin for Clinton that people who didn't really like her could talk themselves into staying home rather than voting "because it's alright, she'll win anyways. That death blow was delivered by FBI Director James Comey when he instructed his agency to reopen their previously closed investigation into Clinton's email server. Now, mind you, Comey could have legally and ethically done this quietly, having his team review the new information, and only go to Congress, and therefore public, if there was something new there. Instead, Comey came out and made a big theatrical production about it ... only to later determine that this was nothing new, and that the conclusion was the same: Clinton had done nothing criminal. There is little doubt that Comey reopening the investigation did for Trump exactly what he needed it to do: it closed the polls, particularly in those crucial upper mid-west states, to within the margin of error, firing up Trump's base while leaving enough room for some likely Clinton voters to remain apathetic and stay home. Trump needed to thread the needle, and the Comey letter was the Hail Mary pass that Trump needed. 

And so, here we are. President Elect Donald J. Trump. A man who would be worth more money if he had taken his dad's loan and inheritance and simply invested it, rather than doing what he's done with it. A man who was a Democrat until it became politically advantageous to become a Republican due to the divided nature of the party. A man who quite literally seems to have no real policy position, or interest in learning about policy, either foreign or domestic. A man who does know show business, and uses that to position and stage things like keeping job in Indiana ... by having me, my wife, and countless other Hoosiers pay for a tax break for the company, while having all American's pay for them to have fat government contracts ... and then watches the company still ship the majority of the jobs they already were going to out of the country anyways ... and then Trump declares it victory. 

Simply put friends, much of what Trump said in the election season was complete and utter lies, intended for the simple sake of publicity. That is the likely outcome of this. As he comes into office he will likely come back to the middle; reality is that he already has on things like The Affordable Care Act, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Muslim Ban and our defense commitments to NATO and other partners. Now, there is a real risk here in that he could, and very simply should, upset his base. But he is banking on something else: that those people will keep listening to Fox News, keep reading fake news on Facebook, and keep going to the Breitbart "news" network for their news rather than going to real journalistic sources. Because if those people do that, they'll hear how it's the Democrats making him not be able to do these things. Or the Republicans. Or both. He's banking that his bread and butter base, the uneducated white person, will stay uneducated. That they'll see Carrier keeping a few hundred jobs here for millions in tax breaks and billions in defense contracts ... and not that Carrier takes all that money and still sends over a thousand jobs to Mexico. He's banking that his base will still see minorities of any type as a part of the problem, not as fellow men and women. He's banking that the Democrats, with a bench so thin that Joe Biden, who would be 77 in 2020, is seemingly the best option out there, will be unable to find anyone capable of dethroning him. He's banking that his base won't notice, or won't care, that he lied to them throughout the primary and general election season ... as he gently drifts towards the middle on many things. 

The alternative, quite frankly, is much more scary. That involves him going through with what he said he would. That alternative is very much in play, as neo-fascists like Steve Bannon continue to have the President-Elect's ear, as anti-Muslim individuals like General Michael Flynn get nominations, and as his cabinet becomes filled with the same Wall Street insiders he condemned during the campaign, and individuals with ties to Russia so strong that you have to wonder if Trump is just going to have a live G Chat with Putin 24/7. If this scenario, that the Trump of the campaign is the Trump who takes the Oath of Office, comes to reality, then there is one hope in the next two years: that the GOP members that have control of the House and Senate do what they didn't have the fortitude to do in the election season: stand up to Trump and force him to stand down. Block some of his nominations if they are unfit for the job or potentially compromised by ties to Putin and Russia. Moderate his policies. Show America that "conservative" doesn't mean "fascist." Prove to America that conservative answers to problems don't have to mean ignorance, fantasy, and putting the top one tenth of one percent's well being ahead of the rest. Needless to say, however, I'm not overly optimistic that the GOP will suddenly find the fortitude to stand up to Trump. They could have done it when he was a weak sideshow. Where are they going to find the strength now that he has become what he has become? 

And so now we see, in plain daylight, the depths of this man and his campaign's ties to Russia. He outwardly encouraged Russia to commit espionage, and then benefited when Russian espionage undermined his opponent. He clearly plans on blowing up US - China relations, starting with Taiwan, and ending with tariffs and taxes (side note: go out and buy your cheap flat screen TV soon ... they may not be cheap much longer!). He is bent on putting the extreme fringe, the radical fringe around him in his cabinet and west wing, and is making it well known that he plans on being a care taker President who generally lets his people do their things and just makes things look good. We've seen this before with Reagan and George W. Bush, but at least they had some people around them who knew what they were doing. Thus far Trump hasn't nominated anyone who has broad bi-partisan support for their nomination. That should scare everyone. 

At the end of the day, I go back to something that a person far more qualified to be President (but far too smart to run for President!) once said about invading Iraq: you break it, you own it. As Colon Powell said then, I say now in a different situation: we the people, because we don't want to honestly work on our imperfect union and would rather be divided and unable to see others as worthwhile, elected Donald J. Trump as the next President of the United States of America. He is unquestionably the most unqualified President-Elect of modern times. As we head into his Presidency, we all need to work together to try to manage to weather the likely storm ahead. We need to work in our communities across the aisle. We need to get past who we voted for, and find common ground. The extreme fringe who voted for Trump needs to be dealt with kindly and empathetcally, but in a way that makes clear that xenophobia, racism, sexism and fear of science and facts is not in any way the future of this country. My high school history teacher once said that he believed this was "the greatest country ever conceived on this earth, warts and all ... and there are a hell of a lot of warts." That statement is true, irregardless of who won this election. But it's time to pull together. If Trump runs to the middle, respects the rights of all people, and moves forward with a modern agenda that acknowledges science and the real state of the world, he should be acknowledged for it. But if he governs as he campaigned then we all have an obligation to do everything we can up and down ballots in 2018 to neuter him, and then to toss him and his government of closed minded, hateful people out of government forever in 2020. Either way, we as a country need to do this together. 

In closing, the best way I could describe this election between two awful choices was this. Hillary Clinton was like playing a lottery ticket. You knew that you were likely going to lose, and not be better off. But you also knew you probably wouldn't lose too much, and there was at least a chance that things would turn out a little bit better. Donald Trump is like playing Russian Roulette. The likely best case scenario involves an empty chamber full of a bunch of hateful rhetoric and bluster, but ultimately our collective heart rate will come down and we'll be all right. But if the chamber isn't empty ... well, none of us will be here to chat about it. Here's hoping the chamber is empty, because a relative handful of people in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are clearly bigger gamblers than I am. Welcome to the Trumpocalypse. This is one of the darkest times in our country's history, that much seems certain. But the beauty of this country has been that we come through the dark into the light of day. Let's go out and do it. 

The Creation of the Unwinnable Presidency

So here he finds himself, going to the American public this Tuesday night to make the case for taking military action in Syria. The Civil War in Syria, which this July went over 100,000 deaths, has been a non-existent topic in the national debate for much of the time it has been raging on. On August 21st, however, footage began to pour out showing civilians dying, apparently the victims of chemical weapons strikes. The US government quickly began to place the blame on the Syrian leadership, including Syrian President al-Assad. The Syrian government had been collecting chemical weapons for years, and had even (allegedly) used the weapons (admittedly, in much smaller doses) already during this conflict.

Today, in an interview with Charlie Rose, Assad not only denied that he was behind the chemical weapons strikes, but also indicated that the evidence that chemical weapons were used was not irrefutable. Assad's administration, hedging their bets, has also indicated that if the weapons were used it was the rebel forces which used them. Into this mess walks President Obama.

He tried and failed to build an international consensus that taking military action against the Assad regime would be prudent. In fact, he ended up with so little support that he is now going to Congress to get approval to take these measures, although he could very easily take action without Congressional approval should the administration deem it necessary for American security. Once it became obvious that the House of Representatives (at least) would be unlikely to back the military action, Obama was left no other option but to go to the well one more time and take his case to the American people.

We have allowed the creation of an unwinnable Presidency in this country. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of if a military strike in Syria is justifiable (let alone if it would be beneficial), let's look at this equation from a strictly political standpoint. There are a number of possible actions that the USA could take in Syria:

1. Do nothing, stay out of the conflict entirely
2. Make small, "behind the scenes" moves designed to influence the outcome of the conflict (ie arm the rebels, send supplies, etc), but make no overt actions
3. Denounce the violence on the international stage and take action to damage Syria economically (sanctions, embargo, etc) or militarily (more directly arming the rebels or influencing those supplying Syria with arms not to do so)
4. Take limited military action, such as enforcing a no-fly zone (ideally risking no lives on either side from US action)
5. Take more involved military action such as cruise missile strikes (risking lives on the Syrian side, including the risk of innocent civilian deaths)
6. Take additional military action such as air strikes (risking lives on both sides)
7. Engage in a limited "boots on the ground" campaign (perhaps to train the rebels or to secure chemical weapons supplies)
8. Engage in a broad "boots on the ground" campaign (highest risk of loss of life on the US side)

All of these actions carry with them a certain amount of risk, even doing nothing (case in point: Nazi Germany). At the present time the USA is pretty firmly sitting in option three, but is looking to take steps to move towards option five or six. Now, for the political no-win situation the President finds himself in. Suppose that Obama looked at the information indicating that their were chemical weapons used, and did nothing. Why, he's a do-nothing President who is soft on terrorism and doesn't stand up for innocent victims of a dictator. Suppose that he make the case for limited military action. Why, now he's a President who only takes half-measures and who is putting the US into situations where we shouldn't be. It's easy to see how he found himself here: "Dubya" used every bit of international trust when it comes to these things, and China and Russia gain a great deal by creating a "powerless" super-power. Make no mistake, the Republicans will decry Obama now for wanting to take military action, but in 2014 will turn around and either a) criticize him for not doing enough, or b) for doing too much.

A no win situation through and through. I feel for anyone who takes on this job. I wonder if he ever looks at it and says "only three years left..."? I can't help but imagine he does. 

The Long Hard Road

As the days go by, and as we steadily move towards the official start of the 2012 election cycle, the numbers keep coming in. One thing you realize studying political science is that the numbers are the constant, unending aspect of domestic politics. We always want the latest, greatest poll, and we want to know exactly right now how people are feeling about candidate x. So we poll people on this, we poll them on that, we give them hypothetical matchups to decide from, and somewhere in the midst of all the numbers we find trends that we try to extrapolate into bigger picture meaning. And so the numbers keep coming in, and in this case they keep confounding me.

I've been saying for quite some time now that there is almost no chance that this country will have anyone besides Barack Obama in office after the next election. I still believe that my statement, and the logic behind it, is mostly true. But the evidence keeps coming in, and it is starting, ever so slightly, to push this situation into more of a coin flip, a horse race if you will. For those of you unfamiliar with poker terms, a horse race is a situation where you get your money in with almost even odds. Pocket 8s against Ace-King, for example. Until recently it appeared to me that unless something drastically bad happened Obama would be much safer than 50/50. That was quite the statement, given the historical nature of the struggling economy, which typically drags incumbents down.

I felt that this was true do to the fact that the Republican Primary field was generally uninspiring or even downright scary. None of that has changed. The Republican field is perhaps even more uninspiring today than it was three months ago, and every day that we move closer to the election their is less of a chance that the mysterious "candidate x" will rush into the race, make the Republican ladies swoon and the men well with pride. As I've said: there isn't anyone out there. And that has made Obama much safer than he should have been, given all the other complicating factors.

Still, a few things have shifted that are making this road look less and less certain. First, every issue has become a knock down, drag out political fight. It seems that nothing gets done in Washington these days with bi-partisan support, and it has begun to seem like there aren't even fundamental principles that these sides can agree on. The debt deal is a great example of this: Republicans rushed to politicize the issue, not because they were against it, but because they could and they felt it would help them in the next election cycle. And the sad thing is, were the roles reversed, I have complete faith the Democrats would have done the same thing. But, unlike an issue like abortion or gay marriage, issues we are used to being highly politicized, this was our nation's credit ... and default. The brazen nature with which the full faith and credit of the United States became a political toy appalled me.

But should it have? This is the same nation in which the greatest national tragedy of our time, September 11th, became the penultimate political toy of our time. Bush used it to define who loved America and who didn't, and then used that differentiation to win elections for he and his like minded colleagues, and then used their combined political capital to push through a wide variety of economic legislation that deregulated everything to the point that our fiscal system has been on the brink of collapse for half a decade now. And, because you have to play by the rules of the game, Obama was able to use 9/11 in a different way to defeat Hillary in the primaries, and to run an extremely effective campaign against George W. Bush ... thereby defeating John McCain ... who tried, but failed, to implement Bush's playbook ... which was based on 9/11. If our nation being at war ... our nation being attacked ... could be turned into a political issue, why should it shock me that the debt crisis was played the same. The rules of the game, right?

And so this brings me back to Barack. What to make of him? It's possible that he is just a dreamer with big ideas and soaring rhetoric, but without the necessary gusto to make things happen. It's possible that he's a centrist at heart who (operating under the rules of the game) ran to the left to beat Hillary, and now is being criticized for not pursuing a truly liberal agenda. It's possible that he just doesn't have the requisite experience to be President, but truthfully who does, and when was the last time someone seemed to have it in their first term? Maybe Nixon, who was corrupt but an effective politician well before winning the Presidency? Or maybe before that. Truman? Who knows?

But no matter the reason, Obama seems to be slipping in the one area he cannot afford to struggle with: his base. Politico reports that all signs indicate that the President's approval ratings are slipping from coast to coast in the bluest of blue states. Polls are just that, but it seems highly unlikely that he could be slipping across all these states and not have it be an indicator of some real issues in his brand and within his base. The article rightly asserts that the President need not worry about losing these Democratic strongholds ... I think New York and California will be safe ... but it questions what these numbers will mean for Obama in swing states. It's a valid question, and it deserves some analysis.

The good news for Obama is that the far left differs from the religious right in one major aspect, and it is the basis of Karl Rove's theory on winning elections (and, seeing as how he was two for two with Dubya, you can't really knock it or disprove it). Rove speculated, and polls and interviews have backed up, that the religious right is the most solidly Republican part of the country. He also postulated that there was almost no way for a Democrat to win their votes, which has also proven true. He furthermore acknowledged that there was not really a third party likely to split their votes off, like the Green Party had for the far left. They don't identify with the Libertarians too much, and last time I checked there wasn't much of a fascist party in the USA. But the real secret to Rove's theory (keep in mind this was pre-Tea Party) was that the religious right felt it had two options to choose from, even if it only had one party. They would vote Republican ... or they would stay home. While it's possible that this equation has changed some with the onset of the Tea Party (although I still don't believe they are a factor), Rove put it simply: fight for the religious right, win their votes, and win the Presidency. You cannot lose if you win the religious right. H.W. Bush didn't listen, refused to capitulate to the theory ... and lost to Clinton. Dubya bought it hook, line and sinker ... and won twice.


But for a candidate such as McCain, not readily identified with the religious right's values and aims, it was much more difficult to win, and he didn't. The good news in the polls for Obama is that the far left is much less likely to stay home, and the memory of Ralph Nader being blamed for Al Gore losing in 2000 is fresh enough that the party base is unlikely to stray too far. So if the fear isn't that he will lose the votes, what is the fear? Simply put, Obama has a tougher road to travel the more upset his base gets because he will have to spend more time appeasing them. And, by extension, less time running to the middle. Obama's ticket to reelection was always playing to the middle, and trying to convince independents that he was the good guy who was hamstrung by a liberal congress, then a non-negotiable conservative congress. "It's them, not me" if you will. And he can do that ... could have done that... so long as his own base was able to buy the argument.

Now, as we see subtle signs that his own base is saying "I'm not so sure anymore," Obama will be forced to run back to the left. As we established earlier, he doesn't have to do this so much to ensure their votes. He has to do this, instead, to ensure their money. No matter who he runs against, unless it's Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama will have to raise more money than ever before. Romney has strong business ties and will raise a ton. Perry has the good old boy network, and will raise a ton. Obama will need every penny to compete with the onslaught of ads he will be running against. He will need it so that he can level the playing field, and try to control the message.

The good news is that the liberal base hasn't decided it wants a primary fight yet, and as long as they avoid that colossal mistake they have the upper hand. But that grasp is fading, and based on the numbers we are seeing it is fading fast. Rick Perry's entrance into the race has actually been to the detriment of Obama as it has done two things team Obama did not want to see happen: it has marginalized Bachmann and solidified support around Romney. Perry is a powder keg waiting to explode, and when it does it will spew molten crazy all over. If that happens early enough then Bachmann can get back into the race; too late, and it will scare people right to Mitt. That's why you see Bachmann and Paul going after Perry as aggressively as they have been: they know it's now or never. Bachmann seemed incredibly strong in Iowa only a few weeks ago, but now it seems like the state is Perry's to lose. Iowa likes to buck the front runner, but it also likes to pick someone it thinks can be a winner. Bachmann was the obvious choice on the former point, but Perry fits both qualifications better. Unless Perry melts down, or we get concrete evidence that he is, in fact, stupid (as a number of articles have hinted at), he continues to make a three team race into a two team race. And it sets Romney up in the same position Obama was in 2008: he has to pander to his base just enough to split it, but can run to the middle in the Primary season as the moderate who can win, and he can build an independent base in doing so. I've said all along that Romney was the Republican with the best chance of taking down Obama ... and just when Barack is at his weakest point yet, things are turning in a positive way for Mitt. Needless to say, the long road to reelection continues to get harder for Mr. Obama.

9/11: Words Cannot Describe

I woke up this morning and watched the programming for the 10th anniversary for 9/11. It's hard to believe that a decade has passed since that day, which I still remember so vividly. Riding my bike to school ... taking the GRE ... the announcement and moment of silence in the school ... the ride back ... watching TV with my parents throughout the night and trying to make sense of it all.

There is no doubt that the world fundamentally changed on that day, and that the course of the world I would live in shifted dramatically. Seeing President George W. Bush today made me think about how much his life, and his administration and legacy by extension, changed on that brilliant September morning. Without 9/11 we probably are not at war, in the midst of the longest war in our nation's history. Without 9/11 who knows? What I do know is that I don't, at the present time, have the words to put my thoughts down onto paper (or a website as the case may be). On that day in 2001 my life, and the lives of six billion plus people shifted forever. And so, in honor of those who died that day, and all those who have given their lives since then, I will simply pass along art. A song, performed at Saturday Night Live, in the aftermath of that horrendous day. Paul Simon. The Boxer (click on video and it will take you to the site).

2012: An Early Handicapping

"We've been sitting on the fence for far too long..."

Okay, so this is a lyric from the legendary musical "Jesus Christ Superstar," but it also has relevance when connected with my shocking silence on the 2012 presidential race. Do you realize it's only seventeen months before the election? I haven't told you what's going to happen yet! You won't know who to vote for if you want to vote for a winner! Ah!!!!!


...



....


............. don't worry friends. I'm here to help you. In fact, let's break down the candidates, as they stand right now. You can thank me later.

Democrats

Barack Obama (incumbent ... in case you've been in a coma since election night 2008)

The Pros: he's the incumbent, although as Jimmy Carter famously showed us in 1980, that doesn't stop your own party from trying to off you. So the fact that Obama looks strong enough to avoid the ghost of Ted Kennedy trying to usurp him is a good start. Beyond that, the economy appears to be slowly, but steadily improving. We won in Iraq (kind of). We are winning in Afghanistan (I think). We finally put Osama bin Laden in check mate (unless you believe the same people who believe Obama isn't an American citizen ... in which case I can't help you). The biggest advantage our current president has is that he is, well, presidential. That only matters when you look at the field of people who will be challenging him ... but trust me, it will matter in this race. His last poll numbers indicated that 30% of Americans will absolutely vote for him, 38% will absolutely not vote for him, and the rest are up in the air. While it is always true that a good number of these "undecided" folks just like to pretend they are undecided, and in fact already know they will or won't vote for Barack (cut to my father silently nodding), it still is interesting information.

The Cons: Where to start? How about with the fact that his economic policy is virtually identical to Dubya's in every way. Don't believe me? Look at this list:

• Keep taxes down in a way which helps the rich disproportionally - CHECK
• Bail out any and every corrupt or poorly run business which is going under - CHECK
• Pass massive healthcare legislation without cutting elsewhere (Bush's prescription drug benefit, Obama's Obamacare, which would have been better if it was actually Obamacare and not so much the Pelosicare that it turned out to be) - BIG **** CHECK
• Look the other way while our national debt skyrockets - CHECK
• Ignore the fact that our welfare system is broken - CHECK

Honestly, I could go on and on. I swear to the spirit in the sky that I was told we were electing a crazed liberal socialist who would turn our country into the USSR circa 1980, and that he was replacing a neo-conservative who would have made fascists blush. And they're the same damn person?!?!?!?!?

My head hurts...

Anyway, couple Obama's less than impressive economic policy with a foreign policy that I would argue has been solid, but which will be distorted by the right on the following points:

• Not releasing Bin Laden's photo
• Not handling Iraq, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, and the rest of the Middle East right
• Israeli lobby. Need I say more?
• Europe's deterioration as an ally
• The border (just wait; it'll be an issue again)
• The Russians
• The Chinese
  
• Damn near everybody short of the Canadians and Australians
  

... and you'll end up with an incumbent who, on paper, should be vulnerable. For my next trick, I'll show you if that's an actual reality.

Republicans

Straight from Politico.com's "Candidate Hub"

Tim Pawlenty - former governor of Minnesota

The Pros: He looks young, which will help him when he is contrasted to el presidente. Just tell John McCain this doesn't matter. Today he was in Washington, DC, at the Cato Institute giving a speech entitled "What Washington can learn from Minnesota." I bet he thinks that Washington can learn paw-lenty from Minnesota. Sorry, couldn't resist. Anyway, he also "tweeted" that we should remember that the 10th amendment still works, and that he would "block grant" medicaid funds to the states for their dispersal. Interestingly enough, I don't disagree with this statement. As for actual pros beyond his youthful look, he just released a book, which always helps, and he ran the state of Minnesota competently (from what I can tell) for two terms. Still, his big promise was to balance the budget, a task which he will tell you he accomplished

The Cons: ... and I regret to inform you he did not. Well, he did, in the short term. But he left the state $4.4 billion short for the next two years by rearranging things so that he could say he balanced the budget. Man, that changed from a pro to a con quick. He better hope Obama doesn't have anyone on his staff who can type his name into a google search. Also, he better hope Obama decides not to debate him. Because this man is, in the word's of a good Irishman I know, "a dry shite" That said, he's the odds on favorite to take the nomination because the two most likely nominees (Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels) decided that they would rather A) keep making half a million dollars from Fox (Huckabee) or B) not get divorced for a second time from the same lady (Daniels). What, too soon for the divorce jokes? Well, maybe if Daniels hadn't been such a train wreck for the state of Indiana I'd reconsider.

Sarah Palin - Former Governor of Alaska (briefly); Bristol's mother (famously); Alaskan Bear Hunter (I think ... Palin's Alaska, right?)

The Pros: As Jon Stewart can tell you, it's been a long few years since Dubya departed. Comedy works best when we have a fearless leader who specializes in unintentional comedy. Dubya did. Obama doesn't. Palin? Oh. My. Gawd. If somehow she decides to declare I will be forced to vote in the primaries this year, just on the wing and a prayer she gets the nomination. Then I will have to TIVO every comedy show every night. Sarah Palin is the very definition of unintentional comedy.

The Cons: Let's see ... train wreck as a VP candidate? Check. Left only term as Governor early for no clear reason, but we think it was to hawk a book and make money at Fox News? Check. Has a reality TV show? Check. Can't name one Supreme Court decision, even though she's a far right conservative who you'd think would be screaming out "ROE V WADE" in her sleep? Check. Let's just say that if Vegas was laying odds, I'd slam the line on "stays at Fox News, a la Huckabee." Although if the Republican primary produces someone semi-liberal, it's possible the "tea party" would beg her to run on their ticket. So we might win either way. Oh, her twitter account? "Tumultuous world gotcha' flummoxed? Divert w/tuning 2 unifying, sweet competition; Dancing w/the Stars TEAM BALLAS competes in finals tonite" That's an exact quote. She writes like she speaks.

- John Huntsman (former Ambassador to China for Obama)
- Ron Paul (last real libertarian left in the country; congressman from Tejas)
- John Bolton (crazy person ... that's his official title, right?)
- Rick Santorum (I got really excited for the 3.7 seconds I thought this was former CNN anchor Rick Sanchez ... the got sad. He's a former senator from Pennsylvania)
- Herman Cain (owner of Godfather's Pizza)
- Buddy Roemer (um... who?)
- Gary Johnson (Willie Nelson dropped his endorsement ... not a good sign)
- Chris Christie (Governor of New Jersey who probably couldn't even carry his own state)

I've lumped this group together because none of them are real candidates. But many of them will be entertaining between now and when they all fall out of the race. Which will be anywhere from next week to the South Carolina Primary. Except for Herman Cain and Ron Paul. I could totally see those two running it out to the very end, then sitting down for pizza and a beer.

Mitt Romney - Former Governor of Massachusetts; 2008 Republican Primary Candidate; Mormon

The Pros: the one candidate in this crowded, underwhelming field who could do what you have to do to win the election: run to the middle and win the independent vote. He has knowledge on business, on health care, and the experience of running a campaign before. He also has really, really awesome hair. Mitch Daniels might have pulled out of the race because he was intimidated by Romney's hair.

The Cons: Um ... he's a Mormon. Which I have absolutely no problem with, but unfortunately for Mitt, the vast majority of Republican Primary voters are hard core evangelical Christians. Which means they do have a problem with it. He's also just a tad bit on the slimy side, and he has the stink of getting dominated last time around by McCain to wear off. Let me paint you a picture: somehow the primary voters get it right, want to give Obama the biggest run for his money possible, and they nominate Mitt. The "Tea Party," up in arms over a "Massachusetts Liberal" who is a "no good Mormon" being the party nominee, convinces Sarah Palin to run for president, with our next "candidate" as her vice presidential nominee ... leading to the following vote break down: Obama 47% - Romney 44% - Palin 8% - Mickey Mouse .0043% - Nader .0000001%

Seem far fetched? It's not. Especially when you get that extra strong dose of crazy to be the VP nominee. America? Are you ready for some....

Michele Bachmann - Congresswoman from Minnesota; succubus; sane compared with anyone

The Pros: There are none. Just google search this nut job and be terrified that anyone would vote her into office. Adolph Hitler would look center left when compared with the "Bach-Man." Not even unintentionally funny; rather, I believe she is intentionally scary. Very scary. But the "Tea Party" followers adore her. Which makes me terrified of them.

The Cons: Again, just google search her. Just don't let your kids. They might never sleep again.

Newt Gingrich - hypocrite extraordinaire; last person to successfully shut down the government

The Pros: He's a household name which means it would be very easy for him to get the vote of the 80% of Americans who don't actually pay attention to who the candidates are. He also helped Clinton (eventually) to balance the budget. And his name is "Newt," which has to count for something, right?

The Cons: Besides his awful performance on Meet the Press last week, there is the fact that he is an intsy bit racist (calling Obama a "food stamp president,"), and the fact that he's a complete hypocrite. You know, pushing for the US government to spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to convict Clinton of, essentially, infidelity, when he was actively cheating on his wife at the same time ... then blaming it on how much he loves his country. Look out world: patriotism leads to adultery. Just ask Newt.

Rudy Giuliani - Former New York Mayor; 2008 front runner who blew his nomination

The Pros: a "liberal" republican who has name recognition due to 9/11. Also, I'm not sure you know this, but the ten year anniversary is coming up. Which has got to help him rebuild his brand. Also, he can't possibly allow himself to be a non-factor for the first month like he did last time, right?

The Cons: anyone who runs as bad of a campaign as he did in 2008 shouldn't be allowed to run again. Not competing until Florida essentially lost him the race before he began running. It was comical.


So friends, there you have it. The list. As I touched on above, only Romney stands a chance against Obama, because he'd be able to compete with him for the independent votes, hold his own in the debates, and has the best track record of all the republican candidates. That said, it's tough to imagine the republican electorate being smart enough to nominate him. Anyone else will get slammed, and even if they pick Romney the Palin/Bachmann "Tea Party" counter isn't far fetched. All things told, then, here are my handicapping for the Republican Nomination, as well as the general election at this time:

Republican Nomination:

- Pawlenty - 30%
- Romney - 20%
- Christie - 5%
- Huntsman - 5%
- Gingrich - 3%
- Guliani - 3%
- Santorum -3%
- Palin - 1.5%
- Paul - 1.25%
- Bachman -.25%
- Other's named above - 1%
- Dark Horse not yet named - 27%

That's right ... only Pawlenty has a better chance than the group that hasn't even decided to run yet. That's how bad this field is. I should also note that I put Christie third, after not even talking about him earlier, based entirely on my mother's prediction. There you go mom. I'll give your insight some validation.

As for the general election, my crystal ball tells me there are three possibilities:

Obama 52% - Pawlenty 46%
Obama 47% - Romney 44% - Tea Party 8%
Obama 54% - Random Republican Scrub 44%

I suppose that a Jeb Bush (the good Bush) or someone of that ilk could change things up. But at this point I've not read, seen, or heard any indication that Obama won't do this year what Clinton did in 1996: wipe the floor with his opponent.

The Multi-Step Dance to War

As I am getting ready to leave for Chicago to go to a White Sox game (yuck!) I was looking over the New York Times, a habit which I developed while in school, and still follow. Today there were two headlines which grabbed my attention. The first was about Obama's news conference, scheduled for tonight, in which he is expected to articulate again his argument for health care reform. The Times argues that this fight over health care could be the "defining moment" of Obama's Presidency. I sincerely doubt that it will be the defining moment, as it is almost impossible to identify the defining moment of a President's term until quite a way down the road. Furthermore, when defining moments happen, they usually occur in the realm of foreign policy. Think about it:

-Dubya had 9-11 and Iraq as his defining moments (even if Katrina should be in there it won't be)
- Papa Bush had the 1st Gulf War
- Reagan had the fall of the USSR
- Carter had the Iranian Revolution and the taking of the US Embassy
- LBJ had Vietnam
- JFK had the Cuban Missile Crisis

In other words, in the post WWII era (A.K.A. the era of USA as "superpower") the majority of Presidents have been defined by a foreign policy issue. Even Nixon would likely would have been remembered for his trip to China and his Cold War diplomacy had he not been a paranoid idiot (see Watergate). Even going back to Truman's second term, Korea was his defining moment, so the trend holds. That leaves us with three post-WWII Presidents who are not easily defined by Foreign Policy issues (Eisenhower, Ford and Clinton), and a fourth who would have been if he wasn't so stupid (Nixon). Eisenhower's presidency was largely uneventful, except for the whole nuclear proliferation thing, so I suppose you could throw him in with the others. Ford pardoned Nixon ... that's pretty much his defining moment, I guess. It's hard to say what Clinton's defining moment would have been, but it's pretty easy to recognize that it is Monica. So, if you're keeping score at home, the post WWII presidency, starting it with Truman's second term, looks a little something like this:

- 11 Presidents
- 7 who are easily defined by a Foreign Policy moment (Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II)
- 1 who, after much thought, probably would be defined by Foreign Policy more than anything (Eisenhower)
- 1 who, if he wasn't an idiot, would have been defined by Foreign Policy and as a great diplomat (Nixon)
- 1 who didn't really do anything other than bail out his predecessor (Ford)
- 1 who couldn't keep it in his pants (Clinton)

And so, if you're a betting person, would you bet that health care reform will be the "defining moment" of Obama's presidency? I certainly wouldn't, and that brings me to the second article from the New York Times which caught my eye. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is starting to throw the idea out there that the US might be looking into extending a security blanket over the Middle East. In practical terms, this means that the US would guarantee the security of many (mostly Sunni) Arab nations in exchange for them helping us to counter the growing Iranian power and prestige in the Gulf. While the article is quick to note that Clinton did not mention fortifying these nations militarily, that is the logical end to this problem. If Iran continues to push forward, and if the Security Council remains split due to China and Russia's loyalties and economic investments in Iran, the next logical step (according to US history) would be for the US is to begin heavily backing other key players in the region. We've done it before, and it would not shock me to see us do it again.

If I was betting on what will become the defining moment for Obama, I'd take a long hard look here. The Iranian situation is not going to go away easily or quietly. The Supreme Leader has dug in for the battle, even in the face of the Clerical establishment splintering between the old guard and the reformist wing. Ahmadinejad will come out of this election cycle significantly weakened, but that will likely only embolden him to try to regain that power. He does not seem, to me, to be a player who will be content to simply hold the office. He is an all or nothing thinker, and will try to find the time to reassert himself. So long as Ahmadinejad has control of the Revolutionary Guard and the other key aspects of the Iranian military and government you can bet he will push forward with his nuclear ambitions. Khaminei seems to have made his bed with Ahmadinejad; he will seemingly choose to lay in it. Barring some internal upheaval, led by Rafsanjani (who alone might have the ability to move the Clerical establishment and the populace, and is seen on the left), the change we desire in Iran is unlikely to come from within.



To that end, the question for Obama will be can that change come from without. I sincerely doubt that anything positive will come from US meddling here, but we may not end up having choice. The Obama administrations has been treading very carefully along these lines, and that should continue. They cannot forget that the regimes we would be fortifying in the Gulf are, in almost every case, less democratic and more tyrannical than the regime we seek to dispose of in Tehran. Backing the Saudis, the Egyptians ... this might seem like the logical move, and it may very well be the best move. But we need to be well aware of the long term ramifications of our actions. Lest we forget, it has barely been twenty years since a war we sponsored to rid the world of the Mullahs ended.
We supported Saddam Hussien in that war, and less than twenty years after he failed to crush Iran we ended up sacrificing a great deal to discard him. The very monster we made (the picture above shows Saddam shaking hands with none other than Donald Rumsfeld). Those who do not learn history are bound to repeat the same mistakes; hopefully the Obama administration will continue to think long and hard before it takes any brash action towards the Iranians.