War on Terror: Romney v. Obama Part I

Former Governor Mitt Romney (R - Massachusetts) on fighting the war on terror.

First, we have to sharply increase our investment in national defense. I want to see at least 100,000 more troops in our military. I want to see us finally make the long overdue investment in equipment and armament, weapon systems, and strategic defense. That's going to require that we spend at least 4 percent of our GDP on defense.

"Let me show you, by the way, a little history here. Let's see if I can make this work. This shows the history as a percentage of GDP of the U.S. military. And you'll see that over time, we've made some pretty significant investments in protecting our country. In the Korean War, 11.7% of the nation's economic activity was associated with the protection of this land. During the Reagan years, it reached approximately 6% of our GDP. Today, it's down to 3.8% and I believe that we have to increase at least by 40-50 billion dollars a year our spending on military strength.

Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) on fighting the war on terror:

This administration's first Secretary of Defense proudly acknowledged that he had inherited the greatest fighting force in the nation's history. Six years later, he handed over a force that has been stretched to the breaking point, understaffed, and struggling to repair its equipment.

Two-thirds of the Army is now rated "not ready" for combat. 88% of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas, and many units cannot respond to a domestic emergency.

Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That's why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

A little reality. According to the US Army website, there are currently about 600,000 soldiers on active duty. This breaks down to 487,000 regular army, 72K National Guard, and 41K Army Reserves. For the Marines, the number is between 180K and 187K on active duty.
Despite their different sounding rhetoric, these two presidential candidates arrive at the same solution. One might be tempted to inquire of these two candidates what these extra troops would do?

References: See http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php and or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States

McCain v. Romney: Mudslinging?

A lot observers are interpreting Senator John McCain's (R - Arizona) remarks about Governor Mitt Romney's (R - Massachusetts) position on immigration as bad for McCain.
Here's what McCain said:

In the case of Governor Romney, you know, maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes, because it's changed in less than a year from his position before. And maybe his solution will be to get out his small-varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn. I don't know," McCain said.

One of the cardinal sins of presidential politics is to let your opponents define you. It is obvious that Senator McCain has launched a full-bored effort to paint the Governor as a flip-flopper. While it may be admirable for the Governor to refuse to get into a mudslinging contest with the Senator, there is great danger that this definition of Gov. Romney could stick. Given the Governor's recent uptick in the polls, it may be that the other candidates will assist the Senator in painting Romney with the flip-flopping label. Watch the campaign over the next few weeks to see if Governor Romney can parry the thrust, and or fight back with his own negative positioning of his opponents.

I was right on Immigration

In my post of May 18th, I suggested the root of Republican opposition to the McCain/Kennedy/Bush Immigration bill was due to fear of election demographics.

That was confirmed today when Rush Limbaugh said:

This could also be called the import more Democrats bill. (or words close to this, I do not have a transcript)

Compassionate Conservatism: Brownback and Huckabee?

I continue to be frustrated by the lack of specific proposed actions from Presidential Candidates Brownback and Huckabee. Senator Sam Brownback (R - Kansas) and Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R - Arkansas) are both "religious" conservatives with questionable positions on economics. (Note: in an earlier post I noted that both candidates supported a flat tax; it appears the Governor Huckabee is now a proponent of the Fair Tax). I have read articles in the press where both candidates are referred to as compassionate conservatives.

On their websites, the evidence of exactly what they are is slim. Governor Huckabee talks about supporting No Child Left Behind, and sounds like he wants to augment that albatross with his so-called "Weapons of Mass Instruction" - to wit: art and music. Now I value art and music instruction... but do we need federal intervention in this area. We certainly didn't need NCLB! It also seems as if the kindly governor would outlaw divorce.

Senator Brownback is equally nebulous. He seems to be for privatization of social security. He favors a flat-tax and wants to reduce the UN in size. Very little substantive material on any of the issues.

So the question is unresolved. We do not need to follow the current compassionate conservative with a clone. Big government is not the answer. If you believe it is the answer, then vote for an authentic big government candidate-- Hilary Clinton for example.

Immigration Reform Demagoguery

According to Wikipedia

Demagoguery refers to a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes. ...but that skilled demagogues often need to use only special emphasis by which an uncritical listener will be led to draw the desired conclusion himself, seeding a belief that is self-reinforced rather than one based on fact or truth. ...Demagogues may make use of logical fallacies, though persuasion may require no use of logic. While it may not rely heavily upon outright lies, the use of half-truths, omissions, and distortions are what define demagogy — it is, in essence, giving bad-faith arguments for the purpose of political gain.

I am becoming increasingly irritated at those who condemn suggested immigration reform, for example the Bush-Kennedy agreement announced yesterday, as "amnesty". Especially irritating is Neal Boortz, but I digress. Amnesty is an act of pardon plus the obliteration of all legal memory. A pardon forgives the crime and eliminates the penalty associated with the crime. Therefore, if one is granted amnesty there is no crime, no penalty, and no record.

The proposed immigration reform creates special records to identify the offenders, in terms of the Z visa, worker documentation, etc. Requires those who have entered the U.S. without permission to pay a fine of $5K. THEREFORE IT IS NOT AMNESTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The true beef of these demagogues is three fold 1) they want to deny illegal aliens profit from their crime, 2) they believe that proposed deal creates an incentive for further illegal immigration, and 3) they are afraid that most of the illegal aliens are liberals who will swing Democrat if they earn the right to vote.

These may be legitimate issues. But it is important to remember that illegal immigration remains a misdemeanor. It should not be treated like a felony unless its legal status is duly changed by act of congress. Even then, those already here could not be held to the felony statute because it was not a felony at the time of commission.

Let's say that you observe a person cross the street to enter a business. The business has a help wanted sign up, the street crosser applies for the job and is hired. Now suppose that upon exiting the newly found place of employment, the crosser is detained by a police office and cited for jaywalking, a $25 fine. The offender has committed a misdemeanor and the profit is his new job. Should the judge order him fired? I think not. Thus, the profit complaint is a red-herring.

Does the deal create an incentive for further illegal immigration? Only if 1) the pipeline for legal immigration stays small and 2) border enforcement stay lax. But the deal provides for a bigger legal pipeline and stronger enforcement, including the fence (which the aliens are currently tunneling under... ).

That only leaves #3, fear that the illegal alien population is Democrat. I have no data to support a conclusion in either direction.

Here is another quote from Wikipedia on Amnesty:

Often wrongly or purposely used by politicians and/or journalists to denote cases of pardon where offenses are not stricken from the record and individuals proclaimed innocent. Instead, those individuals receive some lesser reprimand or sentence in response to an admission of guilt. Otherwise defined as an act of leniency [1] but not Amnesty per se.

Let's stop demagoguing this issue, if you disagree with the proposed penalty system that is fine... but it is not AMNESTY.

A slight disgreement with Ed Koch

I have developed a large measure of respect for Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch. While I disagree with much of his domestic policy ideas. Mayor Koch has been honest, forthright, and resolute in writing about the war on terror. His willingness to buck the hegemony of the Democratic Party's left wing is admirable. His patriotism is unquestioned.

Recently, a column was published, written by Mayor Koch and called brilliant by Neal Boortz on his nationally syndicated talk show, which began with the following line:

Sadly, the war in Iraq appears to be lost.

He continued:

the Congress, not the President, is effectively in charge, have achieved their goal: implementing withdrawal.

and later:

Our army easily won the war, but then lost the occupation.

I disagree with the Mayor's characterization of the war. In no way is it lost. The only way we can lose this war is by turning Iraq over to extremists (al-Sadr, Iran, etc.) that will once again connect Iraq with terror. That has not happened yet, and if the country will turn against retreat it may not happen at all. I agree fully with Mayor Koch's criticism of the administration, particularly their incapacity to engage the left in debate over the true course of the war.

It is regrettably time to leave. It makes no sense to lose any more American soldiers or spill any more American blood.

I disagree with the Mayor's conclusion. It is certainly is not time to turn Iraq over to extremists. We need to be sure that the Iraq government can withstanding unconstitutional coup d'etats. Basing US Forces in Iraq also makes a great deal of sense in terms of continuing pressure on Iran.

Because the Democrats are forcing an end to the struggle in Iraq, we must now prepare to fight terrorism in our homeland for the next thirty or more years. This is a war of civilizations. The Islamic terrorists worldwide want to destroy the U.S. and every other Western nation, along with moderate Muslim nations, e.g., Egypt, Jordan, etc. Our very survival as a nation is involved. Will we have the courage and will to do all that will be necessary to prevail?

The mayor is clearly correct here. The Democrats are suffering from short-sightedness produced by their desire to win the Whitehouse. It may not be a war of civilizations, but it is a war of the view of civilization. We must hold dear to those principles we hold dear: freedom, liberty, free speech, separation of church and state, etc.

There is no safety for the weak and foolish. When you seek to end a war without substantially achieving your essential goals by simply ceasing to fight, it is often a form of surrender. And that's the way the Democrat-imposed outcome in Iraq will be understood around the world, especially by our enemies.

Boortz was mistaken, the essay is not brilliant. It starts horribly, but ends brilliantly. Thanks Mayor Koch for attempting to bring your party back to patriotism.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles
/2007/05/democrats_force_surrender_in_i.html

A Question for Congressman Paul

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) said during the May 15th debate in South Carolina that the terrorists attacked on Sept 11th because of our actions in the middle east since roughly 1953. I have a few questions for the Congressman.

Congressman, you stated:

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.

Do you really believe that the Founding Fathers would not have immediately entered a state of war after Sept. 11th? Do you believe Taft would have?

Do you really believe that negotiating, talking, and trading with other countries is something other than entangling alliances?

Congressman, you stated

Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

Congressman, why then were the terrorists primarily of Saudi origin with none of them being Iraqis?

Congressman, you stated:

When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

If they got their country "back" from us evil-doers why has Iran's terrorist agent, Hezbollah, attacked us several times since? Why has Iran facilitated both Sunni and Shia violence in Iraq? Why are the IEDs that are killing our troops of Hezbollah design? Why has the Iranian parliament shouted "Death to America" every morning for nearly 30 years? The Iranians are Persian and Shia, they have no interest in the Isreal-Palestinian (Palestinian being Arab and Sunni) problem except as an interloper. So why is former Iranian President Rafsanjani under indictment by the Supreme Court of Argetina for ordering Hezbollah to conduct terror attacks against Jewish civilian targets in that country in 1992 and 1994?

Congressman Paul, in your mind what actions did we do that would ever, ever justify flying jet aircraft into skyscrapers?

Congressman Paul, why haven't these offended people followed the path of Ghandi?

The facts do not fit your conclusion Congressman.

Huckabee endorses Hilary's Plan

CSPAN showed a video of a New Hampshire campaign stop by Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas). In the video, Senator Huckabee is shown explaining his plan for government transparency to a potential voter. Senator Huckabee's description sounds very much like point number nine from Senator Hilary Clinton's (D - New York) Ten Point Plan. I couldn't find a description of this on the Huckabee site. But you can visit Senator Clinton's website.

GOVERNMENT REFORM: Remarks on Government Reform
(April 13th Speech)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/

I guess this is the new era of bi-partisanship.

Senator Obama's Conservatism?

This morning on ABC's This Week Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinosis) described himself as "not an ideologue" and that when he was tempted by the more leftist ideology that he found himself pulling back. He described himself as a little conservative in that regard.

Not only is this poor politics in the primary season, it is a miss-characterization of Senator Obama's record.

According to Earl Hutchinson at http://www.imdiversity.com:

Obama got a perfect 100 rating from the NAACP, National Organization for Women, National Education Association, the Children’s Defense Fund, the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, the Illinois Environmental Council (during his stint in the Illinois legislature) and got a huge plus rating from the ACLU. These are America’s top liberal advocacy groups, and they are some of his most ardent cheerleaders.

The National Journal among others has rated Illinois' junior Senator as one the top ten most liberal Senators. He is rated the most liberal of any Democratic Candidate; with the possible exception of Former Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina). That's right, he is even rated more liberal than Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D - Ohio), who this writer considers to be the most authentic (and contemptible) socialist on the American scene. Previous posts on this blog analyzing Senator Obama's positions reveal him to be a big government liberal who draws new federal programs out of his holster whenever he hears the word 'problem'.

For Senator Obama to claim that he is moderate, or that he had rejected leftist ideology, is simply a farce. Every time he speaks he makes it clearer that he is not a suitable choice for the Presidency of the United States.

More of the Stop the Insanity Insanity

Senator Joe Biden (D - Delaware) addressed the International Association of Firefighters recently. The following quote was excerpted from his remarks.

Ladies and gentlemen, in order for us to regain the flexibility to be able to do the things we have to do to affect you and your union brothers and sisters in unions all across the country, and working men and women as well, in order to gain the credibility to deal with the problems we have at home, we have to do one important thing first: We've got to end this war.
This war is costing us $100 billion a year. It's sucking all the oxygen out of the air. It's taking every bit of our political, emotional and the bulk of our financial resources in order to deal with it.

Let's interject a little reality here. The U.S. government is currently spending about 2.7 trillion dollars per year. Why don't you pause for a second, take a deep breath, and let the enormity of that number wash over you. US$2,700,000,000,000.00. According to Senator Biden, the US$100 billion it is taking to fund the war is "sucking all the oxygen out of the room" and constitutes the "bulk of our financial resources." In percentage terms, that $100 billion is less than FOUR ONE-HUNDREDTHS PERCENT.

Come on Senator. You can do better than this.

Joe Biden: In His Own Words

Nothing I could write can spell it out more clearly...

Well, you know, I am one of the most important men in America... and it is nice of you to -- how the heck do you guys and women go through this, man, having all of us -- all 800 candidates showing up?

And I might add, folks, by the way, all foreign policy is – I love, now that I'm a so-called expert on foreign policy, I can introduce that way.

I've never gone anywhere in my life without the firefighters. I've never gone anywhere. From the time I went to Holy Rosary grade school, looking across the street to the Claymont Volunteer Fire Company in my town, to just a couple years ago, every single solitary place in my life, you guys have been. And I won't go into it, but both politically and personally you have been the centerpiece of everything I've done.

So the easy thing for you is, unlike the other candidates, you can endorse somebody else, that's not going to change my view of what I do, firefighters.
You could be against me -- it won't change my view. Nothing changes my view, because, as I said, you are -- you have just every place in my life. It's that important.

There's a saying that says -- excuse the point of personal privilege, and that's all personal.

enough said!

Edwards Tells Graduates to Wimp Out.

Former Senator John Edwards (D - North Carolina) took the occasion of graduation at New England College in Henniker, New Hampshire to begin their lives after colleges in an act of cowardice. In his prepared remarks, the former Senator uses the phrases "support our troops" and "end this war" no less than 18 times. Following the standard approach preferred by modern politicians {that is, if you say something often enough people will start believing it regardless of its merit}, Senator Edwards provides no convincing argument for why: 1) the war should end prematurely, 2) our soldiers should be brought home before the mission, the same one that over 3,000 of their brothers and sisters in arms gave their life for, is accomplished, 3) how an immediate withdrawal from Iraq would positively or negatively effect the war on terror.

I hope that those young New Hampshire students, who were 15 when they watched in horror the terrible events of September 11, explain to the Senator that winning the war on terror requires more thought and veracity than he advocates.

Winning this war can only happen if we end state sponsorship of terror. Senator Edwards prescription would empower Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror in the world today. I hope the class of 2007 has enough sense to reject this candidates' ill-thought out strategy.

Understanding Iranbollah's Reign of Terror

I find it amazing that some people actually believe that Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. See the following ...

http://tadamon.resist.ca/index.php/post/599

It is true that many of Hezbollah's activities are actually acts of war. These do not improve their standing with present writer. Rather these activities help support my conclusion that Iran has been at a state of war witht the US since 1979. Much of this has been conducted through their buddies in the Iranbollah.

Here are some links so that the interested person might explore the topic of Iran, Hezbollah, and international terrorism.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC07.php?CID=230

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001454.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents

The following will help solidify the relationship between Iran and the Hez, if such is necessary.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_gasiorowski.htm

Jim Gilmore's Space-Out

Well, today I was looking at candidate websites and ran across this note on the James Gilmore site. Former Governor Gilmore (R-Virginia) shares Senator Obama's concern for energy independence. He also, apparently, shares Senator Obama's capacity for non-market based solutions. Here is his plank:

Jim Gilmore will launch a national energy independence project called American Energy Freedom, a NASA like effort to motivate and stimulate American ingenuity and technology using research and development tax incentives to help free our nation from its dependence on foreign oil within 25 years. In the meantime, Jim Gilmore will push for steady and dramatic increases in domestic energy production and an increase in the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Jim Gilmore also will support expanding our use of alternative fuels like ethanol, making dramatic improvements in battery technology for plug-in hybrid vehicles and the long-range development of hydrogen power for vehicles

NASA? That's what we need. R and D incentives, we need that too. Is there any evidence that there is a lack of R and D in the energy sectors?

Like much of what we are currently getting from these alleged candidates, this is just platitudes. One gets the distinct impression Governor Gilmore hasn't got the foggiest idea of what to do about energy policy. But he supports expanding our use of alternative fuels. And what is the rationale for increasing the SPR?

Come on Governor, you can do better than this.

Mike Gravel's Dumb Plan - Revisited

I have been thinking more about Former Senator Mike Gravel's (D-Alaska) plan to eliminate the electoral college.

A more philosophical approach to issue recognizes that our country is a representative democracy. Both words are important. A large part of our system involves protecting the rights of the political minority. Thus, it takes a super-majority to end a filibuster. Every state gets two Senators, but congressional representatives are allocated by population. And the electoral college provides another method of ensuring political minorities receive both representation and democracy.

Eliminating the electoral college is a step away from this time honored principle.

Senator Obama: Market Manager

Yesterday, Senator Barack Obama (D - Illinois) gave a speech on fuel efficiency to the Detroit Economic Club. It was a speech full of tough talk and can do platitudes, but it was also was a prescription for government intervention in what should be free markets.

The Senator's problem statement is part true and part fantasy. For example he says that:

we fuel our energy needs by sending $800 million a day to countries that include some of the most despotic, volatile regimes in the world. We know that oil money funds everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the Sunni insurgents that attack our troops in Iraq. It corrupts budding democracies, and gives dictators from Venezuela to Iran the power to freely defy and threaten the international community. It even presents a target for Osama bin Laden, who has told al Qaeda to, "focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause [the Americans] to die off on their own."

and

We know that our oil dependency is jeopardizing our planet as well - that the fossil fuels we burn are setting off a chain of dangerous weather patterns that could condemn future generations to global catastrophe. We see the effects of global climate change in our communities and around the world in record drought, famine, and forest fires. Hurricanes and typhoons are growing in intensity, and rapidly melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland could raise global sea levels high enough to swallow up large portions of every coastal city and town.

and finally

We are held hostage to the spot oil market - forced to watch our fortunes rise and fall with the changing price of every barrel. Gas prices have risen to record levels, and could hit $4 a gallon in some cities this summer. Here in Detroit, three giants of American industry are hemorrhaging jobs and profits as foreign competitors answer the rising global demand for fuel-efficient cars.

The junior senator from Illinois concludes that:

America simply cannot continue on this path. The need to drastically change our energy policy is no longer a debatable proposition. It is not a question of whether, but how; not a question of if, but when. For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time.

WOW, strong words. The age of oil must end in our time? I guess he's going for that vision thing. Let's interject some reality. First estimated world proven reserves are currently in the range of 1082 bbl and 1650 bbl (bbl = billions of barrels). Since at least the 70s oil shocks "experts" have been predicting we would run out of oil. This prompted the Carter Administration to give us 55 mph speed limits and the CAFE standards. Problem is, if you look at any graph of world proved oil reserves it has been increasing, basically monotically, since the 1940s. Consumption is running at about 84 million barrels a day, meaning that current supply would last somewhere between 35 and 54 years. A couple of things to consider: 1) all known oil fields have out produced their "proved reserves", 2) there are new sources of oil in the ground but not yet explored or brought into production, 3) there is enough oil in oil sand and oil shale to last to a very long time window. Some oil experts believe that global production is capped at 85 million barrels per day. This figure can only be increased if new wells are opened. Because daily demand is close to daily supply, prices are high. Add in the uncertainty and speculation caused by war in the region and the price is even higher, and subject to wide swings.
To be fair the Senator, he didn't claim we were running out, only that we're funding terrorism and despots while ruining the environment. Ohhh, and the price is high.


Senator Obama's Prescription includes:

- "we'll need a stringent cap on all carbon emissions"
- "creation of a global market that would make the development of low-carbon technologies profitable"
- "We'll also need to find a way to use coal - America's most abundant fossil fuel - without adding harmful greenhouse gases to the environment."
- "I have already endorsed a cap-and-trade system"
- "invest substantial revenue generated by auctioning off emissions credits into the development of carbon sequestration, advanced biofuels, and energy efficiency."
- "We'll also need new ideas on energy efficiency and the ability to harness renewable sources of energy"
- "gradually raising our fuel economy standards by four percent - approximately one mile per gallon - each year. ... using existing technology and without changing a vehicle's weight or performance. And so the only way that automakers can avoid meeting this goal is if the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration can prove that the increase is not safe, not cost-effective, or not technologically possible."
- "my proposal would provide generous tax incentives to help automakers upgrade their existing plants in order to accommodate the demands of producing more fuel-efficient vehicles."
- "We'll help to partially defray those health care costs, but only if the manufacturers are willing to invest the savings right back into the production of more fuel-efficient cars and trucks."
- "we should make it easier for the American people to buy more fuel-efficient cars by providing more tax credits to more consumers for the purchase of hybrid and ultra-efficient vehicles."
- "we should also realize that the more choices we have as consumers, the more responsibility we have to buy these cars"
- "It's time we produced, sold, and used biofuels all across America - it's time we made them as commonly available as gasoline is now."
- "provide tax credits to those who want to sell a mix of ethanol and gasoline known as E85 at their fueling stations."
- "since it only costs $100 per vehicle to install a flexible-fuel tank that can run on biofuels, I've also proposed that we help pay for this transition."
- "When I'm President, I will make sure that every vehicle purchased by the federal government {has a flexible-fuel tank)"
- "I've introduced a proposal known as a National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard,The idea behind the standard is simple. Beginning in 2010, we will require petroleum makers to reduce the carbon content of their fuel mix one percent per year by selling more clean, alternative fuels in its place."

Well this program is certainly breathtaking in its scope. It probably won't save a gallon of gas. Here's why. If you make things cheaper (through subsidies) people will use more of it, not less. Making driving cars cheaper through hybrid subsidies, E85 subsidies, flexible fuel tank subsidies, etc will lead to more driving not less. More driving means more petroleum use, not less, since none of these ideas replace it. Instituting reform to CAFE will just provide manufacturers a new game to master and play; they are already gaming the current system.

Short lesson on econ for the Senator: If you want people to use less of an item, RAISE PRICES. Ohhhh... that will not get you elected. Interested students of history should study the 1980 presidential election, particularly the positions and proposed policies of Independent Candidate John Anderson.

Mike Gravel's Dumb Plan

Former Senator Mike Gravel (D - Alaska) is running for President. One of the major issues for this infamous leaker is direct election of the President by the population.

Let us be absolutely clear. This may be the dumbest idea ever.

It certainly sounds good. After all the U.S. is a democracy, and what could be more democratic than direct election of the President?

To understand this issue, one must understand the Electoral College and the reasons why the founders invented it. The electoral college's genius is that it accounts not only for population but also for geography (or perhaps more properly, geographical units). Each state is alloted a number of electors equal to the sum of its state senators and congressional representatives. Therefore, even the smallest and least populated states get at least 3 electoral college votes (for example, Rhode Island and Wyoming). The more populated states still have more votes. If one reads the Federalist Papers, the founders make it absolutely clear that the intention is to avoid mob rule.

What would a U.S. Presidential Election look like if Sen. Gravel's plan is enacted?

Answer: A very large power transfer from the country to the cities. Think of it this way. Sixty-one percent of the US population live within the top 100 MSAs, which occur in just 17 states. Only about 33% of the U.S. population voted in the 2004 election (official participation percentages based on eligible voters are higher). Under such a system, those living in the population centers have a huge incentive to vote and those in rural areas a huge incentive not to vote (what would be the use?).
Under this system you can forget about the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. The incentive will be to campaign in the major cities in the major states. Near total control would be conferred on New York, California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Maryland-D.C. Throw in Democratic strongholds in Washington, Oregon, and the other New England states and we would not see another Republican President for... well maybe never.
Here is an interesting applied example. In the 2000 election in the state of California, Al Gore won by something around 1.3 million votes. The former Vice-President won only 21 counties, California has 58 counties. His total margin of victory was accounted for by Los Angeles county and the counties in the Bay Area. To see a map of how little of California Gore actually won, see the following:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS
/state.php?f=0&year=2000&fips=6

Senator Gravel's argument is specious. A more logical argument is that California would be better off instituting its own version of the electoral college to ensure adequate representation of the other 75% of the state.

Good thing that Senator Gravel has less than a 1% chance of winning the Democrat nomination.

War on Terror Part III

After reading Part I and Part II, you might conclude that I am a war-monger set on invading Iran and Syria. It might come to that, but I also have studied strategy. The great master Sun-Tzu taught that the ultimate victory is the one that comes without firing a shot. This would be my recommended goal. However, the mismanagement of our relationship with the Islamic Republic, dating back to the 1979 revolution has been so severe, that hostilities may ultimately be required.

To the current situation. If one accepts that the primary goal of the war on terror is to break the link between the terrorists and their state sponsors. Then one must step back in amazement at the grand strategic position we have gained. Regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq has at least temporarily removed those governments from the list of state sponsors of terror. Coincidentally, it has positioned U.S., Coalition, and NATO troops in positions that should be, theoretically, putting pressure on Iran. Combined with unquestioned U.S. supremacy of the high seas. Iran should be in a vise.

To some extent Iran is feeling the pressure. After witnessing the effectiveness of U.S. forces in Iraq, the Ayatollahs must have concluded that they stood no chance in direct military engagements with the West. They also seems to have concluded that 1) nuclear weapons provide a credible deterrent to invasion and 2) that due to the political situation in the US and the EU that they have a window of opportunity to accomplish the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The current political discourse in the U.S. is furthering the Iranian's apparent goals. Currently, there is a large movement to extract our troops from Iraq. Although, some of these are disingenuous schemes that contemplate restricting our troops to bases in Iraq, others call for removal to Kuwait, still others call for removal to Okinawa. But what would happen to the Iraq we leave behind? Well this gets into forecasting the future. So I need to state another principle that I accept as binding: All estimates of the future are wrong. Recognizing this the question becomes how wrong are they? In this post I cannot provide an answer.

However, it is certainly possible to suggest that Iran will be a more powerful force in the region. It is conceivable that southern Iraq would become a client state of Iran. This would provide Iran with near direct resupply routes to their terrorist group in Lebanon. It might also increase tensions between Iran and other Arab-Sunni states in the region: Saudi Arabia and Jordan to name two. To empower the leading state sponsor of terror makes little sense in the context of a global war on terror. Political candidates that offer to extract our troops from Iraq in the name of hunting bin Laden are promoting a losing strategy in the war on terror.

The only reasonable course of action is to realize that the war on terror has advanced to the point that it is no longer about Iraq. I understand that people continue to die there, that al Qaeda in Mesopotamia continues to launch attacks there, and that the Iraqi infrastructure is as of yet unable to adequately institute the rule of law there. But, the larger picture must be served if ultimate victory is to be achieved.

The following actions deserve consideration:

1) The U.S. should begin an immediate campaign to remind the U.S. electorate and our allies around the world of the brutal and unforgivable behavior of the Iranian regime. Their tactics and methods bring disgrace to one of the most civilized cultures in the Middle East.
2) The United States should publicly demand that Iran cease and desist from all activities that support terrorist groups, especially Hezbollah. These demands should be often repeated, and made at all formal international meetings and organizations.
3) Iran is listed as an observer government in the WTO and has begun the process of accession to that body. This should be canceled and Iran prohibited from WTO grounds until it fully and completely renounces terror.
4) The same should occur at the UN. Even if it never happens (which it will not) the continual pressure by the US and her allies to prohibit this outlaw regime from participating in international affairs as a member in good standing would add to the pressure on the Iranian regime.
5) The United States should undertake covert missions to undermine Hezbollah.
6) The United States should undertake to overtly interfere in Hezbollah-Iranian supply lines. Air freight and shipping traffic should be boarded and inspected at every opportunity.
7) If within a given period of time Iran has not terminated its support for Hezbollah, then a system of ever increasing pressure should be applied including but not limited to: naval blockades of all shipping lanes, destruction of Iranian Air defense systems, destruction of the Iranian Navy, establishment of no fly zones over Iranian territory, destruction of all overland transportation infrastructure, etc.

During this effort to force Iranian compliance, the United States must not forget about Syria. The termination of Syrian involvement with terror would further isolate Iran. Thus, the United States must also begin a campaign to force Syria to end its support for terror along the same game plan as that stated above.

As part of this campaign to pressure state sponsors to end their relationships with terror organizations, the US must be prepared to 1) conduct humanitarian operations on a large scale to get food and medicine to the people, 2) respond with force to any Iranian or Syrian misdeeds (that is, episodes like assassinating Lebanese politicians or kidnapping coalition forces must be punished with clear unmistakable signals of displeasure.