The Cool Blue Blog

Magic gas

According to recent polls, no matter how much people complain about gas prices, people think they aren't paying enough for gas. And as a result, either because they are uneducated in economics or are simply idealistsic, Democrats have their confidence.

But it is clear that people are confused about the issue of energy. When asked if it is more important to protect the environment or find new energy sources 62% said finding energy source was more important than protecting the environment (21%). Fourteen percent said it was important to do both.

But 57% think we should not exploit the oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

With regards to energy in general, 47% disapprove of building more nuclear power plants (45% approve, however). Fifty One percent don't want any more coal powered plants to be built either. People seem to like the idea of power plants that use natural gas. Only 37% think this is a bad idea even though it emits green house gases. And, unsurprisingly, 87% think building wind and solar power plants are a good idea. In this case, it seems that idealism wins over practicality for most people.

Now with regards to gasoline, people are in favor of the Government forcing car manufacturers to be more energy efficient, which is the Obama solution. They must be blind to the fact that people have the power to make that change without government intervention: They could simply choose to buy more energy efficient cars. Car makers respond to consumer demand; If you buy them, they will make them.

Capitalism at work.

But people in general do not seem to have a firm grasp on capitalism, or markets in general.

People in the polls complain that higher gas prices are hurting them financially (60%) but the obviously do not understand that the only way to bring those prices down is for more, not less, oil to be available on the market. It is a simple economic principle that if there is more supply than there is demand, prices will come down. The reason that gas prices are so high is precisely because the United States is producing less oil than it could be producing AND because it is producing less gasoline than it could be producing.

But people do not believe this. They believe that the reason gas prices are a high is because a) Oil companies are making too much profit (83%) and b) the War in Iraq (64%).

Most people do not blame their own driving habits (4%).

Yet, to the extent that people use less gasoline as a result of high gas prices, is the extent to which gas prices will fall (baring other factors).

Wind and solar power will not run your car no matter what. At least not in the foreseeable future.

And it is a fact that if there is more oil and gasoline on the market, prices for these commodities will fall regardless of the "Big Oil" companies.

But it seems that consciously, or unconsciously, people want to pay more for gas because they do not want to do what it takes to bring gas prices down. They do not want to conserve; they want the government to encourage conservation (68%). But they do not want that encouragement to come in the form of higher gasoline taxes. Fifty Eight percent oppose that idea. They want more oil on the market, but they want to depend on other countries, most of whom are hostile to US interests, to produce it. They want more gasoline on the market, but they do not want more refineries to be built.

What they want is magic. They want gas prices to magically go down. They think that if Government makes a law for automakers to make cars that get 500 miles to the gallon, that's what will happen.

Magic.

They think that if oil companies were forced to give up their profits, gas prices will go down.

Magic.

They think that if the war in Iraq ended, gas prices will come down.

Magic.

Forget the fact that the world, with China and India becoming first world countries, is demanding more oil.

Forget that with problems in Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela, oil supplies are being disrupted.

Forget that with Russia producing less oil, there is less supply.

Forget that with the US producing less oil and gas than it could so there is less supply.

And forget that al Qaida and the Islamists are targeting oil supplies in their war on us, and succeeding in places like Nigeria and with oil tanker piracy.

No forget all of that.

The answer is magic.

If you want to win the political debate on energy, you have to encourage magical thinking.

Something Democrats are much better at than Republicans.

The legitimate issue

On Fox News Sunday, Senator Barak Obama told Chris Wallace that his former pastor of twenty years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, was not off limits politically as far as he is concerned

The fact that he is my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue.  So I understand that.

Well good, because the Reverend Wright is out there being an Obama-associated nutcase for all to see. This is causing the Senator problems not just on the Right, but among Democrats as well. Ed Morrisey points out the consternation Reverend is causing among Obama supporters. But more importantly Captain Ed notes

All of these commentators came to see Wright as a narcissist, egotist, provocateur, and a shameless self-promoter in the last 48 hours. Why? In reading the pieces, their ire and scorn come exclusively because of the damage he does to Barack Obama, and with the exception of the Post editorial, not because what he says is ridiculous.

Not one of these columnists mentions his defense of Louis Farrakhan as misunderstood and his anti-Semitism as misreported. Not one of them mentions his strange views on neurology and the supposed synaptic differences between white and black brains. None of them offer even a questioning sentence on Wright’s theories on “tonality” or on the purportedly racial differences between marching bands, let alone his silly and offensive demonstrations of them on stage. Only the Post mentions his repeated assertion that the American government created AIDS as a means for genocide against people of color.

Why not? Because to point these out would be to confirm Wright’s status as a racial demagogue and borderline lunatic, which would really damage Obama.

But the damage this is doing to Democrats goes way beyond Obama.

Yes, it is true that Wright could very well cause Obama to lose the Indiana primary as well as most of the other remaining primaries. And if that happens, if it hasn't already happened, it will dawn on the Superdelegates that Obama is unelectable.

But they will be powerless to do anything about it because regardless of what happens between now and June, Obama will likely still lead in the delegate count and the popular vote when the convention rolls around. And for there to be any nominee other than Obama coming out of the convention, the result will be a split among Democrats; possibly an irreparable split in the Party.

But nominating Obama will lead to defeat for Democrats who this time last year, thought there was no way they were going to lose the Presidency this time.

When it all comes crashing down, will the after action report recommend that Howard Dean be shot? and then once the execution occurs will it business as usual?

Or will Democrats take a long , hard look at themselves and instead of executing anyone, they purge the Party.

They purge the Party of the hard Socialists, Communists, and anti-Americans....

They purge the Party of the nutroots....

And most importantly, they purge the Party of Identity Politics.

All of these things are legitimate issues with which the Democratic Party will have to deal with eventually, or risk becoming irrelevant.

Pants on fire

A new audio tape released by al Qaeda's number 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, denounces all who try to give credit for the destruction of the Twin Towers to anyone but themselves. And Zawahri is particularly upset with suggestions that Israel (or the Joos) perpetrated the crime.

"The purpose of this lie is clear — (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said.

I find it amusing that Zawahri blames Iran for "disparaging" them is such a way while at the same time accusing the Persian leadership of collaborating with America.

"Iran's aim here is also clear — to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said.

Iran cooperated with the United States in the 2001 U.S. assault on Afghanistan that toppled al-Qaida's allies, the Taliban.

Gee, maybe al Qaida should start an "insurgency" in Iran. That would be fun.

And in a segment to be completely ignored by the Democratic Candidates for President, al Qaida's chief mouthpiece reaffirms that Iraq is the centerpiece of their global struggle for the ascendancy of Radical Islam

"The Islamic State in Iraq ... remains to this day the main force confronting the crusaders and their collaborators and challenging Iranian greed," Zawahri said.

And, like Baghdad Bob before him, he reports that America is being defeated by the glorious fighters in Iraq

"The truth is that if Bush keeps all his forces in Iraq until doomsday and until they enter hell, they will only see crisis and defeat by the will of God," said al-Zawahri, the deputy of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.

"If the American forces leave, they will lose everything. And if they stay, they will bleed to death," he said....

"Bush declared that he will grant Petraeus all the time he needs, a ridiculous show to cover up for the failure in Iraq and to allow Bush to evade the decision to withdraw the forces, which is an admission of the failure of the crusader invasion of Iraq, by passing the problem on to the next president," al-Zawahri said.

But such rhetoric is belied by the fact that he continues to call for new recruits

Al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri urged Muslims to join the insurgency in Iraq in a new audiotape posted today on the internet.

“I urge all Muslims to hurry to the battlefields of Jihad (holy war), especially in Iraq,” Zawahiri said in the message, the second in a two-part series to answer about 100 questions put to him via online militant forums....

“I call upon the Muslim nation to fear Allah’s question (at judgment day) about its failure to support its brothers of the Mujahedeen (holy Warriors), and (urge it) not to withhold men and money, which is the mainstay of a war,” he added.

Well, now we know the truth of the situation: Iran is spreading rumors that it was the Joos, not al Qaida who took down the WTC, Iran is our ally in the War on Terror, and al Qaida is winning in Iraq.

Oh, and you know about the recent trend of al Qaida female suicide bombers?

They don't exist

Asked if there are any women in al-Qaida, the terror leader answered simply: "No."

Well, maybe not anymore....

Defensless in Vermont

Vermont has one of the most "liberal" gun policies in the nation: That is you don't need a license to carry a gun, openly or concealed. Chapter 1, Article 16 of the State Constitution is quite clear about this

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

No permit is required to purchase a rifle, shotgun, or handgun. In fact, Vermont is unique among States in that you don't have to me a resident to carry a weapon in Vermont, you just have to be here. But apparently this courtesy, this right to defend yourself, does not extend to the campus of the University of Vermont.

The students of UVM are not allowed to carry a taser, or even pepper spray, let alone a gun, for fear of being expelled.

"The university's position is that weapons or likely facsimiles thereof, are not allowed on campus," said UVM Police Chief Gary Margolis.

Margolis says the UVM ban on tasers and mace pepper spray makes sense because the greatest threat comes from the devices themselves-- not attacks by a stranger.

Is that so.

In the early morning hours of October 7 , Gardner-Quinn was walking home to her [UVM] campus dormitory after a night out with friends. She borrowed a cell phone rom a passerby,Brian Rooney , to call an acquaintance. A jewelery store surveillance camera captured Gardner-Quinn walking north with Rooney at approximately 2:34 am. [1]Six days later, her body was found by hikers near Huntington Gorge in Richmond, Vermont. An autopsy revealed she had been sexually assaulted, beaten and strangled. [2]

This particular incident has encouraged many a UVM student, particularly females, to risk expulsion in exchange for personal safety.

"I own a stun gun. It doesn't shoot out, it's direct contact. Not a taser," she explained.

The UVM student spoke with us with her identity concealed because she owns a stun gun that temporarily paralyzes with high voltage and excruciating pain. Carrying a stun gun or other self-defense items like pepper spray on campus could get her expelled because it violates the UVM weapons policy.

But she says she has good reason to own one.

"A good friend of mine got it for me after what happened last year with Michelle Gardner-Quinn."

...Our student stun gun owner doesn't want that to happen to her."I'm using it for my own safety and to me that's more important than anything."

Reporter Brian Joyce asked: "Worth expulsion?"

"Well if it came to my life, I would rather be expelled then to not be here today," she answered.

Other students across the nation are reminded about how vulnerable they as we mark the 1st Anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech

"Would you rather just sit there and cower underneath a desk when someone executes you or would you rather have a chance to defend your life? That's what it really boils down to."

That was said by  Michael Flitcraft, a 23-year-old sophomore at the University of Cincinnati. He's a member of  Students For Concealed Carry on Campus.

Police are great: after the fact. But no one can expect them to be at the scene of a crime while it is happening except by random happenstance. The ability to prevent a crime is reserved for the individuals involved at the time and place of its actual occurrence. And for that, the victim must be armed, trained in the weapons operation, and have the will to defend themselves.

Vermont, with its obvious lack of gun restrictions remains 48th out of 50 States for violent crime. So it is clear that UVM Police Chief Gary Margolis is wrong when he claims that "greatest threat comes from the devices themselves". I mean when was the last case of someone using a stun gun, taser, or mace in anger, or even accidentally on the UVM campus?

It's not like they are not being carried by students, especially female students, in violation of the campus rules. So where is the evidence that the greatest threat comes from the devices themselves?

"I'd go back to the discussion we have to have with men and women about where are violence-against-women crimes most likely to occur and how do we educate our population about those crimes, versus this belief that simply carrying a weapon of some sort is going to be the best defense," said Margolis.

How about you allow theses self-protection devices, and yes even guns, on campus after the student has registered the device, passed a background check, and can demonstrate that they have been trained to use the device? Something like a concealed carry permit?

I've mentioned that Vermont has one of the lowest violent crime rates and it doesn't require a concealed carry permit. Since Texas allowed concealed carry in 1995,

• Per 100,000 population, rates for aggravated assault fell from 429.3 to 370.
• Robberies declined from a rate of 179.8 to 146.8.
• The rape rate was down to 38.1 per 100,000 from 45.5.
• And murders fell from 9 per 100,000 to 6.1.

Since carrying a concealed weapon in the Lone Star State was legalized, overall violent crimes have declined from 644.2 per 100,000 to 561.

What's more, people with concealed carry permits are less likely to commit a crime

One study found that in Florida CCW holders were 300 times less likely than the general population to commit a crime. A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense." There's a simple reason CCW holders as a group are so law-abiding -- they have to be law-abiding citizens in order to qualify for a permit in the first place.

And they are prepared to be first responders in the case of a violent incident that is either directed at them personally, or as part of a group.

With the one year Anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech upon us, it does us no good to set a policy the ensures a population is unarmed and then advertise the fact in a way that a deranged killer can take advantage of.

Why do you think that is?

The Illusion of Desperate Times

Everywhere in the news there are reports of disaster

Americans' confidence in the economy fell to a new low, dragged down by worries about mounting job losses, record-high home foreclosures and zooming energy prices.

According to the RBC Cash Index, confidence dropped to a mark of 29.5 in April, down from 33.1 in March. The new reading was the worst since the index began in 2002. It marked the fourth month in a row where confidence has fallen to an all-time low.

"Consumers are very pessimistic," said Mark Vitner, economist at Wachovia. "There are not a lot of happy campers out there."

And

More than 80 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, the highest such number since the early 1990s, according to a new survey.

The CBS News-New York Times poll released Thursday showed 81 percent of respondents said they believed "things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track." That was up from 69 percent a year ago, and 35 percent in early 2002.         

Oh there's more

A poll released Monday by Rasmussen Reports found that 63% of Americans believe the U.S. government isn't doing enough to help out the economy, while 19% believe the government's response has been adequate this election year.

But, as always, that's not the whole story. Part of America's problem with the Government's response is that many think the Government is doing too much, not too little.

...48% of voters say the best thing the government can do is get out of the way by reducing taxes and regulations.

Speaking of taxes, it is not a given that Americans want the tax cuts to expire as a way of fixing the economy. When asked "Would you favor or oppose making those tax cuts permanent?", 54% favor making them permanent while only 40% want to see them expire.

And all that anxiety about the economy? It's not the respondent's own financial situation that is the concern; the respondent is concerned about everyone else

When looking at the state of their own finances, more than 70% claimed that their personal financial situation was fairly good or excellent.

And that concern about the sub-prime mortgages, not many are interested in bailing out the homeowners who are falling behind. A recent survey showed that 53% do not want the federal government to help homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage.

These results are consistent with earlier surveys showing that most Americans believed individual borrowers were to blame for the mortgage crisis.  

A separate survey found that most believe the troubled homeowners should buy a smaller house.

And yet, the picture that is being painted is that we are living in desperate times and that the Government should do more to fix things.

Yet the unemployment rate is still only 5.1% which is historically quite low and 70% deem their personal financial situation just peachy.

But all of this distress, according to Back Obama, is driving people to love guns and the baby Jesus

``You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them,'' Obama said, according to an audio recording on the Huffington Post Web site.

``And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,'' Obama said.

Oh, and did I mention that one of the things that people want the government to do is stop illegal immigration?

Fifty-six percent (56%) believe that stopping illegal immigration would help the economy.

Yeah, and 73% of Americans support the right to own and use guns

So it seems pretty clear that desperation is not the cause of these sentiments. People are concerned about gas prices but our efforts to make us more energy independent by drilling in our country have been stymied by disagreements in Congress. And people are confused about what actually causes high gas prices: they believe energy companies are the problem and conservation is the solution.

People are concerned about rising health care costs, but everyone wants to live forever and they think the health care system is broken.

And People are concerned about the cost of education.

But these are not issues that directly relate to the economy and jobs. These are not the kinds of issues that cause desperate people, living in desperate times to run to guns and religion.

The illusion of desperate times serves a political purpose to populists if they can convince you that that a Depression is on its way, if not already here.

Is the fact that the media abets this illusion a political statement?

I'd say it very much is.

War by other means

Karl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz famously said "war is a continuation of politics by other means". He meant by this that war is an instrument of politics.

I turn this around and say that "politics is a continuation of war by other means".

The instinct to kill and wage war to settle disputes is native to human behavior. Religion and ethics is, and has always been, an attempt to mitigate this. It is not by accident that "Thou shalt not murder" is the first Commandment.

Politics is yet another mechanism by which we abstract war and make it "safe". And representative forms government that rule with the consent of the people is a form of abstract war meant to short circuit internal revolt and revolution.

That we all believe the current political season to be the most virulent and mean-spirited ever is not to know the history of politics in this country. Ever since George Washington stepped down to go home to Mount Vernon, politics was war by other means. In 1796, John Adams of the Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson of the Democratic-Republican Party went head to head for the top job.

Aside from being the first election with definitive party politics, it was also a particularly dirty battle for the presidency. Neither candidate did much campaigning personally, but their proxies were vicious in their character assaults. Thomas Jefferson, who had an affinity for French culture and language, was criticized as virulently pro-French as well as an atheist. John Adams was assaulted as an elitist, an advocate for an American monarchy, and personally cantankerous..

The election of 1800, a rematch between Adams and Jefferson, was even worse

The campaign was bitter and characterized by slander and personal attacks on both sides. Federalists spread rumors that the Democratic-Republicans were radicals who would murder their opponents, burn churches, and destroy the country (based on the Democratic-Republican preference for France over Britain. At the time, the rather violent French revolution was in full swing). In 1782, George Washington (who had no political party) had complained "that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest[sic] Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country.”^[1] Meanwhile, the Democratic-Republicans accused Federalists of destroying republican values with the Alien and Sedition Acts; they also accused Federalists of favoring Britain in order to promote aristocratic, anti-republican values. ^[2]

Adams was attacked by both the opposition Democratic-Republicans and by "High Federalists" in his own Federalist Party who were aligned with Hamilton. The Democratic-Republicans felt that Adams' foreign policy was too favorable toward Britain, feared that the new army called up for the Quasi-War would oppress the people, opposed Adam's new taxes, and attacked his Alien and Sedition Acts as violations of states' rights. A faction of “High Federalists” considered Adams too moderate. Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton schemed to elect Vice Presidential candidate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to the Presidency. One of Hamilton's letters attacking Adams became public, embarrassing Adams and damaging Hamilton's efforts on behalf of Pinckney.^[3]

In these first battles between nascent political parties we observe rival political factions take to the stump and the press instead of bands of militias shooting at each other; something of a change in human history.

But make no mistake, it was bloody war.

But something quite amazing happened when Jefferson defeated Adams in 1800: political power changed without bloodshed, and we have managed to do this every election year since and we expect it to happen yet again in January of 2009.

War is an extension of politics. But politics replaces war more times than not since 1796. But we have to keep in mind that representative forms of government are quite sophisticated and go against the natural order of things: it is an invention of human beings. Note that while the campaign of 1800 was going on, the French were changing the political status quo through violence. And indeed we only were able to form a representative form of government through violence.

In Iraq and Afghanistan we see the birth pangs of new representative governments and we see that violence is still being used instead of politics. And while representative governments have been growing world-wide but

there have been setbacks

According to the survey’s findings, the year 2007 was marked by a notable setback for global freedom. The decline was most pronounced in South Asia, but also reached significant levels in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa. It affected a substantial number of large and politically important countries—including Russia, Pakistan, Kenya, Egypt, Nigeria, and Venezuela—whose declines have wider regional and global implications. Furthermore, results for 2007 marked the second consecutive year in which the survey registered a decline in freedom, representing the first two-year setback in the past 15 years.

The people of Iraq have the will to add to the list of functioning representative democracies

If we do...

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.	4
This much we pledge—and more. - John F Kennedy

Working with friends

Back in February, the US Military proved to the world that it's Anti-Ballistic Missile system works just fine. And they did it by shooting down an errant intelligence satellite

The elaborate intercept may trigger worries from some international leaders, who could see it as a thinly disguised attempt to test an anti-satellite weapon — one that could take out other nations' orbiting communications and spy spacecraft.

There was nothing "thinly-veiled" about it, it was clearly a real-world test of a system that had been in the works since the Reagan Administration and revived, in a slightly different form by the Bush Administration after languishing during the Clinton years.

And there is no doubt that "some" international leaders did not see it as good news.

China for one who a year earlier had killed an orbiting satellite (which is a much simpler task but threatening none the less)

And, of course, Iran was none too happy because it has dreams of creating a nuclear tipped ICBM which would be an infidel-killer.

But our friends, the Democracies of the West, did not think it was so bad. And, in fact, at the NATO summit yesterday, agreed to deploying the US technology on NATO soil.

President Bush won NATO's endorsement Thursday for his plan to build a missile defense system in Europe over Russian objections. The proposal also advanced with Czech officials announcing an agreement to install a missile tracking site for the system in their country...

NATO leaders were adopting a communique stating that "ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat to allied forces, territory and populations." It also will recognize "the substantial contribution to the protection of allies ... to be provided by the U.S.-led system," according to senior American officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the statement's release.

The statement calls on all NATO members to explore ways in which the planned U.S. project, to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic, can be linked with future missile shields elsewhere. It says leaders should come up with recommendations to be considered at their next meeting in 2009, the officials said...

The plan calls for 10 interceptor missiles based in Poland and a tracking radar site in the Czech Republic.

Almost a week after the successful shoot-down of the satellite proving the worth of the ABM system, Barak Obama reiterated his opinion that our ABM technology is not ready for prime time and that when made President, he would cut such programs

As president, ... I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

Well the only missile defense system we have is proven to work. But even if it wasn't proven how are you going to acquire a proven missile defense system if you cut the funding to develop it?

Back in 2007 he promised he would deploy a proven system.

"The Bush Administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles. If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should - but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes. The Bush Administration has also done a poor job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile defense system that has major implications for all of them. We must not allow this issue to divide "new Europe" and "old Europe," as the Bush Administration tried to do over Iraq." (emphasis is mine)

So now that the system is proven to work (and is not an exaggeration) and NATO allies, consulted, want it deployed, will the Senator change his position about cutting the missile defense program?

In a speech given in Arlington Virginia on March 26th, 200 Senator McCain said

One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies.  We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to.  We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests. 

At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust.  Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay "decent respect to the opinions of mankind."  Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed.  We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies.  When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right.  But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

I wonder if Senator Obama is willing to listen, and work with our friends in NATO, which is the closest organization existing to a League of Democracies.

Or is he only willing to work with our enemies.

Senator Obama has a problem with Americans protecting themselves

Rather than create a national registry, “I do think we have to do a better job sharing information between local and federal officials,” Obama said yesterday. He differs with McCain and Clinton about whether people should be allowed to carry concealed guns. Clinton and McCain oppose outlawing it.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

But a large number of Americans disagree with the Senator, not the least of which is James William Spiers III

Spiers is a pizza delivery man who was out on an order when an assailant put a pistol to his head and demanded that Spiers hand over his money. Spiers reportedly grabbed the gun from his assailant, pulled his own weapon, and fired, hitting the would-be robber no fewer than three times.

Spiers himself was unharmed. He called the police, who took a report and later arrested a man with multiple gunshot wounds who had called for medical help. But after the incident, Spiers received another shock: Pizza Hut was suspending him for violating a company policy against delivery drivers carrying weapons. Spiers was out of a job.

If elected President, I fear Senator Obama will be the Pizza Hut of American Foreign Policy actively working against the self-preservation interests of Americans, America, and our friends abroad.

A Hundred Years

In a town hall meeting back in January, Senator McCain had this exchange

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

Senator Obama characterized this conversation this way

“John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years,” Obama said during a town hall meeting in Lancaster, Pa.

“John McCain is willing to sign up for the prospect of spending as much as $150 billion or more each year for who knows how long,” Obama added, noting that by suggesting that the U.S. keep a long-term presence in Iraq, “that implies that there is some criteria by which we would understand how long it takes. John McCain has not been clear about what exactly leads him to decide it’s time to pull out.”

Do we need such clarity for the troops stationed in Germany? Japan? Italy? The Horn of Africa? Will Senator Obama "pull out" from these countries as well?

Yesterday, the Columbia Jounalism Review made note of Senator Obama's distortion

Since then, some conservatives have drawn attention to the distortion, and Obama’s been a bit more careful with his language. Today, for instance, he said: “We can’t afford to stay in Iraq, like John McCain said, for another hundred years.” It’s technically true that McCain said that, but Obama’s clear goal in phrasing it that way was to imply, falsely, that McCain wants the war to continue for that long. In other words, he’s gone from lying about what McCain said to being deeply misleading about it. Progress, of a kind....

This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.

Few in the press have done that. But then again, there is this...

Clearly the good Senator Obama is not so eloquent when talking off-script about things that are real.

But we have questions about Senator Obama's position. Thankfully Senator McCain asked them

McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, responded Tuesday that he’d like to know how many troops make up a “strike force.”

“Where are they based? What do they do? Now I’m intrigued. He has said he will pull out all troops before. How do you reconcile those two?” McCain asked.

I wonder if the good Senator Obama will answer...

Who are they voting for?

According to a survey on political positions completed by Barak Obama in 1996, the candidate said he opposed capital punishment, opposed parental notification of abortions being sought by minors, and supported measures to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns". When asked about a single-payer system for healthcare

He claims to support none of these positions today.

Ordinarily this would not be a problem: people change their minds. Politicians are people. Therefore politicians change their minds.

But the problem here is that Obama claims he never opposed capital punishment, never opposed parental notification of abortions being sought by minors, and never supported measures to "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns".

A week after Politico provided the questionnaire to the Obama campaign for comment, an aide called Monday night to say that Obama had said he did not fill out the form, and provided a contact for his campaign manager at the time, who said she filled it out. It includes first-person comments such as: “I have not previously been a candidate.”

So according to Obama, he never filled out that questionaire himself and the staffer who did, misrepresented his positions

...Obama says he supports the death penalty in limited circumstances, such as an especially heinous crime. The campaign says Obama has consistently supported the death penalty “in principle” and opposed it “in practice.”

On handguns, his campaign said he has consistently been for “common-sense limits, but not banning” throughout his 11-year political career...

“His views are very much in the mainstream of the Democratic Party,” said chief strategist David Axelrod, who has known Obama since 1992 and worked with him since 2002. “There are some issues on which he’s probably viewed more conservatively. He’s been a consistent voice on issues of, for example, parental responsibility and pushed those hard, because he believes in them.”

Unfortunately for Obama, further digging by Politico

determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

When presented with this evidence

...Obama... did not dispute that the handwriting was his. But he contended it doesn’t prove he completed, approved — or even read — the latter questionnaire.

Huh.

Spinning the Mahdi's

The recent fighting in Basrah and Baghdad's Sadr City is the result of the Iraqi government finally taking action against Shi'ite militias the way they did against the Sunni militias. That Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army has been a tool for Iranian interests in Iraq for years is no secret. And the fact that al-Sadr has been in Iran for the past year is also a clue.

But to the Los Angeles Times, the current battle is a political war with the US "caught" in the middle

The biggest surprise about the raging battles that erupted last week in southern Iraq was not that the combatants were fellow Shiites, but that it took this long.

Enmity has long festered between the two sides: one a ruling party that has struggled against the widespread perception that it gained power on the back of the U.S. occupation, the other a populist movement that has positioned itself as a critic of the U.S.-backed new order.

As they vie for power before October provincial elections that will determine who controls the oil-rich south, the stakes are high not only for the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the largest Shiite faction in the Iraqi coalition government, and the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to cleric Muqtada Sadr.

The conflict also poses great difficulties for the Americans, who are widely seen as siding with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party against Sadr.

Um, how many ways could the LAT be wrong, disingenuous, or just outright lying?

Let's look first at how they characterize the two "sides"

one a ruling party that has struggled against the widespread perception that it gained power on the back of the U.S. occupation, the other a populist movement that has positioned itself as a critic of the U.S.-backed new order

The ruling Party, aka the Government and a "populist" movement aka Iranian proxies.

Now let me ask you if some group of armed force in the US started taking over cities by force of arms and they were armed and supported by a foreign government, would they be called a "populist" movement?

Would the fight between the Police, National Guard or the Army and this "populist" movement be characterized as a "political" struggle?

How ridiculous would that be?

Then they say

The conflict also poses great difficulties for the Americans, who are widely seen as siding with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party against Party against Sadr.

So the US is siding with the elected government of Iraq against armed militants who have a political wing. Need I say, "Of course?"

The IRA had a political wing, and a militia wing. Was the actions of the armed militants, you know, blowing up Catholics and all, just a political dispute?

The fact is, the Iraqi Government whose Prime Minister is Nouri al Maliki, is using Government forces to put down armed militants. And they are doing this with US and British support.

They are not going after un-armed political rivals.

Is this so hard for the professional reporters of the LA Times to comprehend?

Now, as he has done in the past whenever is "Army" starts taking heavy casualties, al-Sadr is calling for a cease-fire. This after

358 Mahdi Army fighters were killed, 531 were wounded, 343 were captured, and 30 surrendered. The US and Iraqi security forces have killed 125 Mahdi Army fighters in Baghdad alone, while Iraqi security forces have killed 140 Mahdi fighters in Basrah...

From March 25-29 the Mahdi Army had an average of 71 of its fighters killed per day. Sixty-nine fighters have been captured per day, and another 160 have been reported wounded per day during the fighting. The US and Iraqi military never came close to inflicting casualties at such a high rate during the height of major combat operations against al Qaeda in Iraq during the summer and fall of 2007.

But as with the Tet Offensive, the Mahdi Army and what they represent must be spun and defeats turned into victories if the Press, and Iran, are ever going to hope to force the US to abandon Iraq.

And thereby assure that a Democrat takes the Oval Office in the Fall.

UPDATE: Austin Bay writes:

The Iraqi way often appears to be indecisive, until you learn to look at its counter-insurgency methods in the frame of achieving political success, instead of the frame of American presidential elections.

In southern Iraq and east Baghdad, Sadr once again lost street face. Despite the predictable media umbrage, this translates into political deterioration.

Think of the Iraqi anti-Sadr method as a form of suffocation, a political war waged with the blessing of Ayatollah Sistani that requires daily economic and political action, persistent police efforts and occasional military thrusts.