Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Dividers & Uniters
Part of Barack Obama's "change" meme is about how he's going to make Washington work in a bipartisan fashion. That promise sounds as silly now as George W. Bush's boast of being "a uniter, not a divider" does in retrospect.
Bipartisan compromise requires two sides on an issue to find a middle ground that often leaves the fringes unhappy. Is there any area where Barack Obama takes a position that the congressional Republicans might find palatable? Aside from his general belief that more troops are needed in Afghanistan, and his opposition to the Supreme Court's overturning of the Louisiana death penalty for child rapists, it's hard to see Obama finding agreement with the Republicans on anything. Perhaps a look at Obama's voting record might reveal some substantive attempts to forge compromise, except for the fact that Obama has less than four years of US Senate votes to scour. Even his records in the Illinois state legislature are marred by all of his "present" votes that reveal nothing about how he's going to behave as president.
At the same time, John McCain has a substantial record of breaking with his party for causes he believes in. Campaign finance reform, taxes, climate change and judicial nominees are all issues in which he's joined with Democrats in the past. I happen to disagree with his votes on several of these issues, but I'd rather have a candidate who will split with his party out of genuine conviction than one who will stick with the party for political gain.
Of course, the relevance of reaching across party lines depends on who is elected in the first place. Barack Obama will have a Democrat congress behind him, and it's easy to see the congressional Republicans getting steamrolled. The result of a Democrat monopoly on the executive and legislative branches will lead to a repeat of the Republican malaise of 2003-2006. Conversely, a McCain presidency will require compromise with congressional Democrats in order to be effective.
Still, astute poltical observers can determine who will be the "uniter" and who will be the divider." The impressive way that John McCain and his "Gang of 14" handled the judicial filibuster and avoided the "nuclear option" in 2005 shows me which presidential candidate can really be trusted to reach across party lines.
Bipartisan compromise requires two sides on an issue to find a middle ground that often leaves the fringes unhappy. Is there any area where Barack Obama takes a position that the congressional Republicans might find palatable? Aside from his general belief that more troops are needed in Afghanistan, and his opposition to the Supreme Court's overturning of the Louisiana death penalty for child rapists, it's hard to see Obama finding agreement with the Republicans on anything. Perhaps a look at Obama's voting record might reveal some substantive attempts to forge compromise, except for the fact that Obama has less than four years of US Senate votes to scour. Even his records in the Illinois state legislature are marred by all of his "present" votes that reveal nothing about how he's going to behave as president.
At the same time, John McCain has a substantial record of breaking with his party for causes he believes in. Campaign finance reform, taxes, climate change and judicial nominees are all issues in which he's joined with Democrats in the past. I happen to disagree with his votes on several of these issues, but I'd rather have a candidate who will split with his party out of genuine conviction than one who will stick with the party for political gain.
Of course, the relevance of reaching across party lines depends on who is elected in the first place. Barack Obama will have a Democrat congress behind him, and it's easy to see the congressional Republicans getting steamrolled. The result of a Democrat monopoly on the executive and legislative branches will lead to a repeat of the Republican malaise of 2003-2006. Conversely, a McCain presidency will require compromise with congressional Democrats in order to be effective.
Still, astute poltical observers can determine who will be the "uniter" and who will be the divider." The impressive way that John McCain and his "Gang of 14" handled the judicial filibuster and avoided the "nuclear option" in 2005 shows me which presidential candidate can really be trusted to reach across party lines.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Cuil Runnings
I recently checked out the Cuil search engine, pronounced like the word "cool." The engine is created by ex-Google employees. My hope is that they'd come up with a search engine that will allow me to steer away from the "hippies" at Google.
Upon using Cuil, it appears that the engine still needs a lot of work to compete with the big boys. On the plus side, the interface looks really slick. Unfortunately, the search results were less relevant than those on Google, and I could see less results per page. Also missing are neat Google features like Google Maps and Image Search.
While I wish I could ditch Google and give Sergei Brin one less person to sponsor his left-wing advertisers, it won't be happening anytime soon. Google has built a robust suite of internet applications that people around the world, myself included, have grown dependent upon.
Upon using Cuil, it appears that the engine still needs a lot of work to compete with the big boys. On the plus side, the interface looks really slick. Unfortunately, the search results were less relevant than those on Google, and I could see less results per page. Also missing are neat Google features like Google Maps and Image Search.
While I wish I could ditch Google and give Sergei Brin one less person to sponsor his left-wing advertisers, it won't be happening anytime soon. Google has built a robust suite of internet applications that people around the world, myself included, have grown dependent upon.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sharpening the Knife
Political commentators from across the spectrum are looking at the McCain campaign and agree that it is off-message and ill-organized. While the addition of Mitt Romney to the ticket might be able to help the organization, it's clear that unless the McCain campaign shapes up, it will not be able to go toe-to-toe with Barack Obama in enunciating a message or mobilizing the vote during these last 100 days of the campaign season.
For the McCain campaign, it means sticking to a focused message about why a McCain presidency will be good for America, while an Obama presidency is a disaster waiting in the wings. Barack Obama is particularly vulnerable on energy and foreign policy. The issue of domestic drilling could be a winner for McCain, but he needs to go on the attack and point out the folly of waiting 20 years for alternative fuels when domestic petroleum could be available as a stop-gap in ten years. Obama's positions on Iraq and Iran should also leave him vulnerable, while McCain's support for the surge was a political gamble that should be paying off.
At the same time, McCain needs surrogates to help him hone in on the #1 issue this election: the economy. Obama has a considerable edge in polling on this issue, but it's unclear if the American people understand what effect Obama's tax and tariff policies will have in fighting a recession. McCain needs somebody like Mitt Romney to stress the importance of low taxes and cutting federal spending spending when the economy is slowing and the dollar is weak.
Most importantly, John McCain needs to stand on the pillar of experience. How can we trust the nation in the hands of a man whose served the federal government for less than four years? How do we know what he'll support as president based on a miniscule voting record in the Senate?
Some political observers on the right (and a few on the left, like Bill Clinton apparently,) believe that Barack Obama is a fad who will melt down during the critical days of the election. At the same time, John McCain believes that he is a stronger candidate when he runs from a position of weakness. I would contend that it will not be enough for McCain to simply wait for Obama to melt down. He needs to come out swinging now. If the Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayers scandals have shown us anything, it's that Barack Obama is a teflon politician who can successfully deflect any hint of wrongdoing or chicanery.
For the McCain campaign, it means sticking to a focused message about why a McCain presidency will be good for America, while an Obama presidency is a disaster waiting in the wings. Barack Obama is particularly vulnerable on energy and foreign policy. The issue of domestic drilling could be a winner for McCain, but he needs to go on the attack and point out the folly of waiting 20 years for alternative fuels when domestic petroleum could be available as a stop-gap in ten years. Obama's positions on Iraq and Iran should also leave him vulnerable, while McCain's support for the surge was a political gamble that should be paying off.
At the same time, McCain needs surrogates to help him hone in on the #1 issue this election: the economy. Obama has a considerable edge in polling on this issue, but it's unclear if the American people understand what effect Obama's tax and tariff policies will have in fighting a recession. McCain needs somebody like Mitt Romney to stress the importance of low taxes and cutting federal spending spending when the economy is slowing and the dollar is weak.
Most importantly, John McCain needs to stand on the pillar of experience. How can we trust the nation in the hands of a man whose served the federal government for less than four years? How do we know what he'll support as president based on a miniscule voting record in the Senate?
Some political observers on the right (and a few on the left, like Bill Clinton apparently,) believe that Barack Obama is a fad who will melt down during the critical days of the election. At the same time, John McCain believes that he is a stronger candidate when he runs from a position of weakness. I would contend that it will not be enough for McCain to simply wait for Obama to melt down. He needs to come out swinging now. If the Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and William Ayers scandals have shown us anything, it's that Barack Obama is a teflon politician who can successfully deflect any hint of wrongdoing or chicanery.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Mega Man 9
When I was a kid, I loved playing the Mega Man games on classic Nintendo. As the times changed, Mega Man eventually made the leap. "Mega Man 7" appeared on Super NES and sported enhanced graphics. "Mega Man 8" on Playstation and Sega Saturn enhanced the graphics further, and added extensive anime cut scenes to advance the story (which admittedly was an excuse for Mega Man to run around, jump from platforms and ladders, and shoot lots of goofy looking robots.)
Eleven years after "Mega Man 8," the Blue Bomber returns in "Mega Man 9." Unfortuantely, I think the new game is a huge disappointment. It's a re-hash of the 8-bit Nintendo games which doesn't move the series into new territory. Capcom waited so long because it was hard to see a side-scroller game being commercially-successful until the advent of streaming media and lower-cost games. But I think the problem can be attributed to a lack of creativity on Capcom's part, rather than the market itself.
To understand what makes Mega Man fun, you have to strip away the colorful (albeit blocky) graphics and side-scrolling levels. Mega Man was about shooting wacky robots, climbing ladders, dropping down shafts, and making tricky leaps between platforms (which would often disappear or drop from under you.) Mega Man was about bright, cartoony graphics and catchy techno music. While all these things worked on the old Nintendo, there's no reason why they can't be implemented in 3D graphics on the new game systems. Most importantly, Mega Man was about figuring out the correct order to fight the bosses, and which weapons were most effective against a particular Robot Master.
Back in 1996, Naughty Dog launched the gaming phenomenon known as Crash Bandicoot. The original trilogy of Crash Bandicoot games sold extremely well on the original Playstation and earned the respect of gaming critics across the world. The reason for their success was simple: Crash took all the fun from the traditional 2D platform games and brought them into a 2D, 32-bit world. There wasn't any free-roaming exploration like in Super Mario 64, but Crash served up the fun in spades. He leaped from platforms, bashed crates for power-ups, rode around on a tiger, evaded boulders, and jumped on the heads of his enemies.
Could old-school Mega Man survive in the world of 3D? Of course he could! Simply take the Crash Bandicoot style of gameplay and add shooting into the mix. An auto-targeting feature, like in From Russia With Love, would take the challenge out of marksmanship and let gamers focus on madcap shooting and platforming.
It would also be possible to move the Mega Man series in a whole new direction. Capcom had once tried such a bold move with "Mega Man Legends," an adventure game with role-playing elements and introducing a new cast of characters in a future "Mega Man" universe. Unfortauntely, Capcom abandoned "Legends" after "Mega Man Legends 2" in 2000. Would it be too hard to combine the "Legends" gameplay with the original cast of Mega Man charaters?
Eleven years after "Mega Man 8," the Blue Bomber returns in "Mega Man 9." Unfortuantely, I think the new game is a huge disappointment. It's a re-hash of the 8-bit Nintendo games which doesn't move the series into new territory. Capcom waited so long because it was hard to see a side-scroller game being commercially-successful until the advent of streaming media and lower-cost games. But I think the problem can be attributed to a lack of creativity on Capcom's part, rather than the market itself.
To understand what makes Mega Man fun, you have to strip away the colorful (albeit blocky) graphics and side-scrolling levels. Mega Man was about shooting wacky robots, climbing ladders, dropping down shafts, and making tricky leaps between platforms (which would often disappear or drop from under you.) Mega Man was about bright, cartoony graphics and catchy techno music. While all these things worked on the old Nintendo, there's no reason why they can't be implemented in 3D graphics on the new game systems. Most importantly, Mega Man was about figuring out the correct order to fight the bosses, and which weapons were most effective against a particular Robot Master.
Back in 1996, Naughty Dog launched the gaming phenomenon known as Crash Bandicoot. The original trilogy of Crash Bandicoot games sold extremely well on the original Playstation and earned the respect of gaming critics across the world. The reason for their success was simple: Crash took all the fun from the traditional 2D platform games and brought them into a 2D, 32-bit world. There wasn't any free-roaming exploration like in Super Mario 64, but Crash served up the fun in spades. He leaped from platforms, bashed crates for power-ups, rode around on a tiger, evaded boulders, and jumped on the heads of his enemies.
Could old-school Mega Man survive in the world of 3D? Of course he could! Simply take the Crash Bandicoot style of gameplay and add shooting into the mix. An auto-targeting feature, like in From Russia With Love, would take the challenge out of marksmanship and let gamers focus on madcap shooting and platforming.
It would also be possible to move the Mega Man series in a whole new direction. Capcom had once tried such a bold move with "Mega Man Legends," an adventure game with role-playing elements and introducing a new cast of characters in a future "Mega Man" universe. Unfortauntely, Capcom abandoned "Legends" after "Mega Man Legends 2" in 2000. Would it be too hard to combine the "Legends" gameplay with the original cast of Mega Man charaters?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
She kissed a girl, and some didn't approve
Pop singer Katy Perry is tearing up the music charts with her hit single "I Kissed a Girl," but not everybody is amused. MSNBC's Tony Sclafani is apparently one of them. He's not too fond of her first single, "UR So Gay," either.
Katy Perry's critics will look at her background and try to draw some conclusions. Her parents were Christian ministers, and her first commercial foray into music was a Christian album released under the name "Katy Hudson." The reasoning is that her Christian upbringing has led to two blatantly homophobic songs. Except that, based on interviews and the content of the rest of the album, it's pretty clear that Katy Perry is far from the ideal of evangelical Christian virtue. If anything, she's the stereotypical "good girl gone bad."
I would advise Ms. Perry's critics to listen to the rest of the songs on her album before they pass judgement. It's pretty clear that all of her songs are very sarcastic. Is it possible that she's trying to satirize the overuse of the term "gay" as a synonym for "lame" when she sings, "You're so gay, and you don't even like boys"? Perhaps "I Kissed a Girl" is mocking pop culture's fascination with female bisexuality and "lipstick lesbians." Maybe it's telling that Madonna would endorse "UR So Gay," in spite of the respect that many in the gay community feel for her.
I am not endorsing Ms. Perry's music, and I frankly find it to be too synthesized, too artificial, and too mechanical. I think that "I Kissed a Girl" trivializes the serious issue of people who are confused over their sexual identity. But I don't think that the critics should be jumping the gun and dismissing her songs as "homophobic."
Katy Perry's critics will look at her background and try to draw some conclusions. Her parents were Christian ministers, and her first commercial foray into music was a Christian album released under the name "Katy Hudson." The reasoning is that her Christian upbringing has led to two blatantly homophobic songs. Except that, based on interviews and the content of the rest of the album, it's pretty clear that Katy Perry is far from the ideal of evangelical Christian virtue. If anything, she's the stereotypical "good girl gone bad."
I would advise Ms. Perry's critics to listen to the rest of the songs on her album before they pass judgement. It's pretty clear that all of her songs are very sarcastic. Is it possible that she's trying to satirize the overuse of the term "gay" as a synonym for "lame" when she sings, "You're so gay, and you don't even like boys"? Perhaps "I Kissed a Girl" is mocking pop culture's fascination with female bisexuality and "lipstick lesbians." Maybe it's telling that Madonna would endorse "UR So Gay," in spite of the respect that many in the gay community feel for her.
I am not endorsing Ms. Perry's music, and I frankly find it to be too synthesized, too artificial, and too mechanical. I think that "I Kissed a Girl" trivializes the serious issue of people who are confused over their sexual identity. But I don't think that the critics should be jumping the gun and dismissing her songs as "homophobic."
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Joker & Two-Face
After watching the phenomenal Batman flick "The Dark Knight," I have to ask if there's more subtext to the movie than meets the eye. The Joker obviously represents a depraved terrorist akin to Osama bin Laden. He lives only to create chaos, to unwind the very fabric of society. As Alfred says, he "just wants to watch the world burn."
But the tragic hero of Harvey Dent reminds me of Barack Obama. He runs on a promise to restore hope to the people, by fighting a corrupt system against insurmountable odds. In spite of initial success, Harvey Dent is eventually undone and corrupted through the Joker's efforts.
I often think that Barack Obama thinks he can change Washington because he's too inexperienced to realize that Washington can't be changed. Granted, Washington operates the way it does because it's been effective, to some degree, for the past 232 years. That's not to say that things will continue to work, or that other approaches will not work. But America is a nation that rarely anticipates massive shifts in its way of life, and usually changes reactively rather than preemptively.
If terrorism should rear its ugly head against the homeland again, will Barack Obama stand tall like Batman, or crumble like Harvey Dent? I'd like to hope that he could be Batman. But his unilateralist pacifism toward Iran and his blind hawkishness towards Pakistan make me believe that he will morph into Two-Face.
But the tragic hero of Harvey Dent reminds me of Barack Obama. He runs on a promise to restore hope to the people, by fighting a corrupt system against insurmountable odds. In spite of initial success, Harvey Dent is eventually undone and corrupted through the Joker's efforts.
I often think that Barack Obama thinks he can change Washington because he's too inexperienced to realize that Washington can't be changed. Granted, Washington operates the way it does because it's been effective, to some degree, for the past 232 years. That's not to say that things will continue to work, or that other approaches will not work. But America is a nation that rarely anticipates massive shifts in its way of life, and usually changes reactively rather than preemptively.
If terrorism should rear its ugly head against the homeland again, will Barack Obama stand tall like Batman, or crumble like Harvey Dent? I'd like to hope that he could be Batman. But his unilateralist pacifism toward Iran and his blind hawkishness towards Pakistan make me believe that he will morph into Two-Face.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Idle Speculation
In my email today, like millions of other Americand, I received a letter signed by the CEO's of several major airlines. In their plea, they asked me to pressure Congress to restrict speculation on crude oil. Their reasoning is that rampant speculation is driving up the price of crude and hurting all Americans.
I am deeply skeptical that speculation is a major factor in the price of oil. The simple fact is that global demand is increasing, and the supply will not increase to follow suit until untapped resources such as ANWR oil are drilled and pumped. Nevertheless, many economic commentators believe that restricted or outlawed speculation will cause a sharp decline in the price of oil and bring it back to around $60 per barrel.
If I were President Bush, I would pressure Congress to pass a temporary ban on speculation. Not because I blame speculation for high prices, but because it might require a demonstration to prove to the Barack Obama's of the world that speculation is not the root of the problem. Of course, any temporary demo would allow proponents of a speculation ban to claim that the ban wasn't in force long enough to make a difference. Nevertheless, the socialist economics espoused by Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats need to be dispelled in particularly dramatic fashion.
I am deeply skeptical that speculation is a major factor in the price of oil. The simple fact is that global demand is increasing, and the supply will not increase to follow suit until untapped resources such as ANWR oil are drilled and pumped. Nevertheless, many economic commentators believe that restricted or outlawed speculation will cause a sharp decline in the price of oil and bring it back to around $60 per barrel.
If I were President Bush, I would pressure Congress to pass a temporary ban on speculation. Not because I blame speculation for high prices, but because it might require a demonstration to prove to the Barack Obama's of the world that speculation is not the root of the problem. Of course, any temporary demo would allow proponents of a speculation ban to claim that the ban wasn't in force long enough to make a difference. Nevertheless, the socialist economics espoused by Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats need to be dispelled in particularly dramatic fashion.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Health of the Insurance Industry
Barack Obama claims that John McCain's health care plan will "shred" the employer-provided healthcare industry. But in looking at the performance of employer-provided healthcare, it leaves to to wonder whether this is actually a good thing.
Under the current healthcare system, in which health care is largely expected to be a benefit of employment, there's a major disconnect between insurers and customers. The healthcare companies have no incentive to provide the employees with examplary service. They are bound only to keep costs down for the employer. Is it any wonder why so many Americans complain about they quality of their healthcare and the range of services that are covered? It's time to cut the employers out of the insurance equation.
The McCain plan would incentivize more people into private healthcare plans through tax breaks and bring down the cost of private plans. The downside is that these plans are likely more selective than employer-provided plans. I also question the wisdom of making employer-provided healthcare count towards taxable income. While it's part of McCain's strategy to move people away from employer-provided insurance towards private insurance, the reaction will be much like the public revolt against fees for checked baggage on airlines. Americans will recoil at the thought of paying for something they used to get for free.
Under the current healthcare system, in which health care is largely expected to be a benefit of employment, there's a major disconnect between insurers and customers. The healthcare companies have no incentive to provide the employees with examplary service. They are bound only to keep costs down for the employer. Is it any wonder why so many Americans complain about they quality of their healthcare and the range of services that are covered? It's time to cut the employers out of the insurance equation.
The McCain plan would incentivize more people into private healthcare plans through tax breaks and bring down the cost of private plans. The downside is that these plans are likely more selective than employer-provided plans. I also question the wisdom of making employer-provided healthcare count towards taxable income. While it's part of McCain's strategy to move people away from employer-provided insurance towards private insurance, the reaction will be much like the public revolt against fees for checked baggage on airlines. Americans will recoil at the thought of paying for something they used to get for free.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Freedom
Two hundred and thirty two years ago, America's founding fathers delared their independence from Great Britain. They signed their own death warrants and branded themselves as traitors in the eyes of the crown. Over the next seven years, they would wage an insurgency against the world's most powerful army in the belief that London had broken the rule of law in its attempts to reassert control over the erstwhile colonies.
The birth of America was a watershed event in human history. Never before had the law become king of the land. The government's authority was based on a social contract between the people and the government, rather than the whims of a hereditary monarchy. The Constitution, enacted in 1789, would establish that God was the only absolute moral authority in America. This too was profound, because it ensured the government could not take away our freedom of speech, expression, or belief. The social contract further ensured that the government would not monopolize the nation's firearms, lest the government become corrupted and tyrannical.
America led the way in ensuring that all people are free to be cynical and bitter about their government. To place one's trust fully in the government is foolhardy and unpatriotic. America allows people to "cling" to guns and religion. Without the vagaries of a king to tell us what's right and wrong, we're free to pursue happiness in whichever way we feel is best.
For 232 years, America has been leading the way in the quest for greatest personal freedom. The enduring wisdom emparted from the founders of America is that limited national government and allowing for personal governance are far more effective than the totalitarian systems that have persisted from antiquity to the present. The challenge America will always face is the temptation to regress into statism. For the sake of free men, we must be resolute and never let it happen.
The birth of America was a watershed event in human history. Never before had the law become king of the land. The government's authority was based on a social contract between the people and the government, rather than the whims of a hereditary monarchy. The Constitution, enacted in 1789, would establish that God was the only absolute moral authority in America. This too was profound, because it ensured the government could not take away our freedom of speech, expression, or belief. The social contract further ensured that the government would not monopolize the nation's firearms, lest the government become corrupted and tyrannical.
America led the way in ensuring that all people are free to be cynical and bitter about their government. To place one's trust fully in the government is foolhardy and unpatriotic. America allows people to "cling" to guns and religion. Without the vagaries of a king to tell us what's right and wrong, we're free to pursue happiness in whichever way we feel is best.
For 232 years, America has been leading the way in the quest for greatest personal freedom. The enduring wisdom emparted from the founders of America is that limited national government and allowing for personal governance are far more effective than the totalitarian systems that have persisted from antiquity to the present. The challenge America will always face is the temptation to regress into statism. For the sake of free men, we must be resolute and never let it happen.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
If He Makes it Work, is it Still a Failed Policy?
Barack Obama claims that his trip to Iraq will influence his position on the five-year-old war in that country. It appears he is taking the same tack that John McCain may take by visiting the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge and deciding that he favors drilling for petroleum there.
I've suspected that Barack Obama is somewhat pragmatic on the issue of Iraq. The problem is that his primary campaign was littered with the rhetoric of "failed policy" and the 16-month pullout of "combat forces." That last term gives Obama a lot of wiggle room. Obama advisor Samantha Power prepared a paper calling for a "supporting force" of up to 80,000 troops to stay in Iraq for the immediate future. The paper wasn't widely publicized because 1) it would offend liberal Democrats who were deciding the primaries, and 2) Samantha Power was on her way out after calling Hillary Clinton "a monster."
If Obama sticks with the plan to have a large residual force after removing the combat troops, does that make him much different from John McCain? I would still argue that Obama's position needs a lot more explanation. If he believes that Iraq has been a failed policy, why keep anybody in that country at all? Does he have any long-term vision for Iraq that includes a stable, somewhat-democratic government? Will he still be claiming that Iraq has been a "failed policy" if the country stabilizes under his watch?
I'm going to need to hear a lot more from Barack Obama to see if he has any kind of strategic vision for Iraq before I'd feel comfortable with him as commander-in-chief (although I will never feel comfortable with him running the economy.) I know that John McCain has a realistic vision for what it's going to take to stabilize Iraq. He views the mission in terms of pulling combat forces out when the generals can vouch for the readiness of the Iraqi forces who will ultimately defeat the insurgency. He also knows that American logistics, airpower and special forces are essential for many years to come. Ultimately he favors a reduced presence similar to the American footprint in Germany, Japan or South Korea.
The question is whether Barack Obama has the military insight to know what's needed to complete the mission. Does he think that a residual force can be accomplished on the cheap? Does he know that special operations forces can't be effective against al Qaeda unless there's a high level of engagement with everyday Iraqis, and a stable government in Baghdad to support their mission? It's a case where Obama's eloquent rhetoric can't make up for a lack of detailed policy proposals.
I've suspected that Barack Obama is somewhat pragmatic on the issue of Iraq. The problem is that his primary campaign was littered with the rhetoric of "failed policy" and the 16-month pullout of "combat forces." That last term gives Obama a lot of wiggle room. Obama advisor Samantha Power prepared a paper calling for a "supporting force" of up to 80,000 troops to stay in Iraq for the immediate future. The paper wasn't widely publicized because 1) it would offend liberal Democrats who were deciding the primaries, and 2) Samantha Power was on her way out after calling Hillary Clinton "a monster."
If Obama sticks with the plan to have a large residual force after removing the combat troops, does that make him much different from John McCain? I would still argue that Obama's position needs a lot more explanation. If he believes that Iraq has been a failed policy, why keep anybody in that country at all? Does he have any long-term vision for Iraq that includes a stable, somewhat-democratic government? Will he still be claiming that Iraq has been a "failed policy" if the country stabilizes under his watch?
I'm going to need to hear a lot more from Barack Obama to see if he has any kind of strategic vision for Iraq before I'd feel comfortable with him as commander-in-chief (although I will never feel comfortable with him running the economy.) I know that John McCain has a realistic vision for what it's going to take to stabilize Iraq. He views the mission in terms of pulling combat forces out when the generals can vouch for the readiness of the Iraqi forces who will ultimately defeat the insurgency. He also knows that American logistics, airpower and special forces are essential for many years to come. Ultimately he favors a reduced presence similar to the American footprint in Germany, Japan or South Korea.
The question is whether Barack Obama has the military insight to know what's needed to complete the mission. Does he think that a residual force can be accomplished on the cheap? Does he know that special operations forces can't be effective against al Qaeda unless there's a high level of engagement with everyday Iraqis, and a stable government in Baghdad to support their mission? It's a case where Obama's eloquent rhetoric can't make up for a lack of detailed policy proposals.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Executive Orders; Or, Heart of Clarkness
Wesley Clark told "Face the Nation" on Sunday that John McCain lacks the executive experience to be president. When confronted with the realization that Barack Obama has even less executive experience, Clark fell back on Obama's oratorical skills and policy positions to make the argument for an Obama presidency.
Clark's argument about executive experience is a relevant one when selecting a president, even though his conclusions are farcical. Executive experience is something Americans should look for in a president. It's easy for a Senator to vote for a bill, but it's tough for a president to be "the decider" who must enact the bill, appoint the people who will carry it out, and bear the consequences for his actions.
In that regard, I look up to governors, military leaders, and mayors of large cities as people who have the executive experience necessary to be president. I do not feel that being a senator is an automatic qualification to hold the highest office in the land.
It's easy for General Clark to complain about a lack of executive experience. How many other Americans can claim to have been the Supreme NATO commander? The same goes for another Obama ally, Tony McPeak, who called McCain "fat" and claimed that McCain received preferential treatment in his post-Vietnam military career. But if Generals Clark or McPeak want to stand on the altar of executive experience, they should be running for president themselves instead of backing a candidate whose entire political background has been spent as a legislator. McCain's command of a naval squadron should count for something, as well as his chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The challenge of electing the chief executive is that no executive job can prepare you for the rigors of the highest office in the land. George W. Bush was an able Texas governor, but the challenges of the presidency were far steeper than those of the Texas governor. His claim to be "a uniter, not a divider" was based on his experiences working with Texas Democrats; on the national stage, Bush learned that Washington Democrats are far less amenable to Republican notions than the Texas variety.
In recent history, Governorship has proven to be a springboard for most of the presidents: Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and FDR. (Truman, LBJ, Ford, and Bush 41 were vice presidents, and the former three became president upon the death or resignation of the sitting president.) JFK was the only sitting senator in recent times to be elected to the presidency, and he was much maligned during the time between his inauguration and his murder. With two men, both senators who have never been governor, seeking the White House, it will be interesting to see who is elected and how that person performs.
Clark's argument about executive experience is a relevant one when selecting a president, even though his conclusions are farcical. Executive experience is something Americans should look for in a president. It's easy for a Senator to vote for a bill, but it's tough for a president to be "the decider" who must enact the bill, appoint the people who will carry it out, and bear the consequences for his actions.
In that regard, I look up to governors, military leaders, and mayors of large cities as people who have the executive experience necessary to be president. I do not feel that being a senator is an automatic qualification to hold the highest office in the land.
It's easy for General Clark to complain about a lack of executive experience. How many other Americans can claim to have been the Supreme NATO commander? The same goes for another Obama ally, Tony McPeak, who called McCain "fat" and claimed that McCain received preferential treatment in his post-Vietnam military career. But if Generals Clark or McPeak want to stand on the altar of executive experience, they should be running for president themselves instead of backing a candidate whose entire political background has been spent as a legislator. McCain's command of a naval squadron should count for something, as well as his chairmanship of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The challenge of electing the chief executive is that no executive job can prepare you for the rigors of the highest office in the land. George W. Bush was an able Texas governor, but the challenges of the presidency were far steeper than those of the Texas governor. His claim to be "a uniter, not a divider" was based on his experiences working with Texas Democrats; on the national stage, Bush learned that Washington Democrats are far less amenable to Republican notions than the Texas variety.
In recent history, Governorship has proven to be a springboard for most of the presidents: Bush 43, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and FDR. (Truman, LBJ, Ford, and Bush 41 were vice presidents, and the former three became president upon the death or resignation of the sitting president.) JFK was the only sitting senator in recent times to be elected to the presidency, and he was much maligned during the time between his inauguration and his murder. With two men, both senators who have never been governor, seeking the White House, it will be interesting to see who is elected and how that person performs.
