Kerry's Mistake

The topic du jour for the next few hours is the gaffe by Kerry today.

Contra Andrew Sullivan I don't think that an apology would kill it off quickly. But more importantly, I think that in the long term his subsequent apology will be a kiss of death for his Presidential aspirations.

First, as to the short term, an apology doesn't do anything to neutralize press coverage because the story very quickly moved from being about what JK said and onto what other people where saying about his comment. What is or is not a story is determined by what the press chooses to dilate on. The whole idea of the bully pulpit of the Presidency isn't that it imbues you with any magical abilities but simply that whatever the President says is news in and of itself.

JK can apologize, deny, argue, or make any other string of coherent (or perhaps not) words till he is blue in the face and it doesn't actually matter. Look at the headline at WaPo "Bush: Kerry Insults Troops". CNN: "Bush joins attacks on Kerry". FOX (ironically the fairest headline): "Bush, Kerry spar over remarks on troops". BBC: "Kerry gives unexpected gift to Republicans" (which I see as more a reaction to the media than the actual political impact). The specific words he uttered are relevant only insofar as they were grounds for The Corner and Rove to flaggulate him and tap into the chattering class. An apology rather just means that Thursday's headline will be a far less flattering version of "Kerry apologizes for attacking troops" rather than forcing a larger discussion about which socio-economic class is being disproportionately affected by the conflict in Iraq.

In the longer run, though I think it is an even bigger mistake because it again paints him as waffling. GWB has NEVER apologized for anything. And he never will. And as a result he will never be called "weak" or "soft" or "indecisive".

Now I am perfectly willing to believe that Lurch is comically deficient. But such an obvious and blatent shot across the bow is the kind of thing you usually only hear out of Rove's winnign campaigns. And that is the point. Dems kill the Republicans on everything except security issues. If we put a 20 foot tall concrete barrier around the country Dems would will every election for the next century. Losing a few PC points to say what everyone knows and then show you've got the guts to go toe-to-toe with the Presidential noise machine and not back down (and even more, seguay it into a meaningful discussion about how Repubs are screwing over the lower/middle class families they claim to care about) is how you make everyone forget how you backed down in 2004 and propel you to the front of a crowded field.

So JK, if you are listening, don't back down (in fact stop saying it was a joke - the worst thing you can do is say you think that the fact that the only upward path for kids not going to college is to get shot at in the desert is in any way humorous). Stand up and you will be rewarded. Back down and I guess you will just be showing your true stripes and letting those like me know that we were wrong about you.

Iraq Debate

In the course of todays Iraq debate Dan Lungren (CA-R) made a great point – for the other side. "There is a difference between Iraq and Vietnam. In Vietnam when we left the enemy did not follow us home. Unfortunately the same is not true in Iraq."

In Vietnam the Communists did not continue pushing forward after the 1975 withdrawal. Of course that came after a decade of hearing about the domino effect; that if we were to leave Saigon the rest of Asia would fall first and our enemies would then be on our doorstep. Sound familiar to anyone?

Of course Duncan Hunter (CA-R) did make a strong case for the war. Saddam and al Qaeda used to say that they weren't afraid of us, but now they don't.

With regard to Karzai's biggest fear being Americans leaving, I wonder if it has to do with the fact that he doesn't have any power outside the capitol? Then again, I haven't ever actually heard anyone call for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Chasing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi... 18,500 seriously wounded men and women. Fighting the Iraqi's revolutionary war for them... 2,500 American lives. Getting the guy who brought down the Twin Towers... ???.

Reading through the morning politics two absolutely crazy thoughts I can't get out of my head. One has to do with the NSA surveillance flap that was brought to the front again yesterday but stretches back a few months. The second has to do with the latest batch of tax cuts signed yesterday and their impact on the treasury.

What do these have to do with each other: well they both represent the tendency for people to privilege today over tomorrow. It also relates to the strange rule by which people place a higher value on loss than gain. Democrats seem to have the same problem ? making sure they win in November rather than establishing the preconditions for sustained success at some point in the future. With that in mind here are my two crazy musings:

1) Why shouldn't the NSA be able to listen in on any phone call made by any person, or for that matter read any email sent by anyone, in the course of prosecuting the War on Terror?

I can understand rule of law type complaints ? technically certain activities may not be consistent with current statutory guidelines. But shouldn't we be working to overcome those procedural failings by providing legislation to authorize whatever measures are necessary to prevent an attack on the homeland (though I am pretty sure that was what they meant with the Authorization in 2001). After all, if I am calling UBL or his buddies the government should know about it, and if I am not then I have nothing to worry about. Granted I wisely decided not to go to law school, but my understanding is that it is not per se illegal via the 4th Amendment for government agents to listen in to a conversation; what is illegal is for them to do something with what they hear. Again, if I am calling my grandmother to say Happy Mother's Day nothing will happen. If I am calling Moussawi to say the fertilizer is ready for pick up, someone else should be showing up at my house.

This is the entire problem with the law enforcement methodology for combatting terrorism: it is always too late (see McVeigh, Timothy). With GWOT, we send them to Guantanamo, they sit around till we know for sure they aren't a threat, and then we send them home. Saudi women who forget their burqua's should be so lucky. As far as pressure tactics, for all we know these people could be sitting on the next 9/11, so treating them with kid gloves is foolish and dangerous. As far as I am concerned the only experts on torture in America are the 'Nam POW's ? and from what I can tell our treatment of these folks (please don't call them POW's; none of them worked for an army, except for the Taliban soldiers, but since when do we owe barbarians the courtesy of Geneva) hasn't been harsh enough.

As the Moose says, "it is time for some reasoned clarity". After all, "the governments primary duty is to protect and defend our nations ... In times of war, there is always a delicate balance between security and liberty. And we must be vigilant that certain lines are not crossed. Keep in mind, however, that great Democratic Presidents such as FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ approved and implemented far more intrusive intelligence programs in the interest of national security. And the Clinton Administration's Echelon program was similar to the NSA data mining effort ... Unfortunately, there are death worshiping Jihadists who seek to kill us. And we must fight them with all our might and means."

After all, in the famous declaration of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", life comes first (rightly so, as it is a priori a condition for the other two). Besides, the NSA program is

2) Should we let the Dems win?

As a true conservative (not on of these idiotic, selfish middle-class brutes who votes for us so that we will help keep his gay brother in the closet and remind him that there are other people far more morally repugnant than him), it is pretty obvious that the unsustainable welfare state is ready to topple America. The deficit has pretty much stabilized at $300b a year ($400b if we stop pretending Iraq never happened) and will basically be on that trajectory at least until 2010. Simultaneously, China is beginning to run out of "easy" growth along its coast and needing to boost social investment (meaning no more trading toasters for T-bills).

With money so cheap, raw materials in high demand, and the Wal-mart supply chain about to hit a wall it is likely that we have two options between now and 2012: a) reform entitlement payments to retiree's, or b) a 2nd global depression.

Option a: First, I will suspend disbelief and assume in good faith that in fact the Republican party is attempting to achieve conservative policy goals rather than simply enrich itself with the spoils of government. Starve the beast (though dubious when used by politicians) has long been the primary mode of limiting government spending. The logical extension of people voting for tax cuts would be support for spending decreases. Unfortunately, what have become known as "red state" Americans enjoy having their cake and eating it too. Yet while they are all too happy to grasp at a cut in their capital gains rate, even whispering about indexing social security to inflation will get you publicly lynched. The simple fact is that since LBJ we have had 5 conservative presidents and now have had 12 years of Congressional rule and entitlements have only gone up.

Option b: We all know what this would do to the economy, so I needn't elaborate on the consequences of continued debt. The fact is, within a decade, American entrepreneurism will pull us out of it and life will resume. But what will that brave new world look like? The simple fact is the voters will look back at the start of the 21st century, conclude conservatism a failed project, and send us back into the wild for another 40 years while America takes yet another giant step towards becoming a communist nanny state.

On the other hand, a Democrat victory in the run-up to this will allow it to appear as though they precipitated the collapse. This will open the door politically for conservatives to finally undo the great mistakes of the New Deal and Social Security. Moreover, it has the power to force a massive rightward shift in the political spectrum and destroy the left for a century.

I'm kind of an important person. My apartment is filled with many leather books. It smells of mahogany.
-Ron Burgandy