PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts

So reports the AP: Officials: Edwards to enter 2025 race.

I don’t think he will do as well this go ’round as he did in ‘04.

Via the AP: Bayh Says He Will Not Run for President in 2025

Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana will not seek the presidency in 2025, saying he believes the odds of a successful run were too great to overcome.

‘’At the end of the day, I concluded that due to circumstances beyond our control the odds were longer than I felt I could responsibly pursue,'’ Bayh said in a statement Saturday. ‘’This path — and these long odds — would have required me to be essentially absent from the Senate for the next year instead of working to help the people of my state and the nation.'’

The announcement comes just two weeks after Bayh, in an appearance on a Sunday talk show, announced that he would take a first step toward a 2025 presidential campaign, forming an exploratory committee.

A smart move. Bayh had little hope of overcoming Clinton or Obama. While he has hovered on the national scene for some years he is not well known outside the political junkie circuit and let’s face facts: he isn’t exactly an exciting politician.

Via NPR: Border Fence Firm Snared for Hiring Illegal Workers

The Golden State Fence Company’s work includes some of the border fence between San Diego and Mexico.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

h/t: Greg Weeks

John Hinderaker of Powerline is making a proposal to the President (Mr. President, If I May Be So Bold…) which entails pretty much starting a war with Iran as a means of salvaging the Iraq policy.

First he draws an inappropriate analogy between a Civil War battle and Bush’s situation on Iraq and then he launches forth with a statement that there is proof that Iran is helping arm the insurgency in Iraq.

He then proposes:

So here is what you, President Bush, should do: take as a model the Cuban Missile Crisis. First John Kennedy, then Adlai Stevenson, laid before the world the evidence, in the form of aerial photographs, that the Soviet Union was installing nuclear arms in Cuba. The proof was taken as conclusive, and, consequently, the Kennedy administration’s actions enjoyed universal support at home, and widespread support abroad.

There is a major problem here: we tried that with Iraq and it didn’t work out so well. Remember Powell before the UN and all the pictures proving the presence of WMD? It seemed pretty convincing at the time. Problem was, the information was wrong. Any similar presentation would be treated with extreme skepticism, as is only fair (fool me once, shame on you and all that). Even if the information was 100% accurate, it would not be treated the way Hinderaker thinks it would be and, quite frankly, the recent record of US intelligence agencies in these matters hasn’t been all that stellar of late.

But forget the slide show. Hinderaker wants to go a step beyond that:

You should say that Iran’s supplying of weapons in order to kill Americans is an act of war. In the dramatic finale of your speech, announce that thirty minutes earlier, American airplanes stationed in the Middle East took off, their destination, one of the munitions plants or training camps of which you have shown pictures. That training camp, you say, no longer exists. You say that if Iran does not immediately cease all support for, and fomenting of, violence in Iraq, we will continue to strike military targets inside Iran.

In other words: let’s start a war with Iran as a bold move (see the beginning of his post) to salvage the Iraq war.

Indeed, he wishes to go beyond just training camps and the like, he sees this as a chance to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions:

A forceful and dramatic conclusion. But that isn’t quite the end; instead, in the manner of Columbo or Steve Jobs, you add just one more thing: you declare that no nation that is engaged in killing American servicemen on the field of battle will be permitted to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Iran must either open all nuclear-related facilities to inspection by an international group headed by the U.S. (not the U.N.), immediately and for the foreseeable future, or those facilities, too, will be destroyed, along with the economic infrastructure that supports them.

If you do this, will the country back you? Not all of it. The liberals are too far gone. But half the country–your half–will, and maybe more. It is, after all, a little hard to explain why we should not respond to acts of war committed against us by a hostile nation that has vowed to destroy us.

This is insanity.

For one thing, it would harldy be a 50-50 proposition in terms of support, and second if a President is going to get us involved in a major war, he needs more than 50% support anyway. This is, after all, a democracy and some actions require broad support–major war being one of them.

The last time I checked we were having serious problems executing the war in Iraq. There have been serious and severe questions about the competency of the entire affair and Hinderaker thinks that an expansion of the conflict would be in the interest of the United States? Or that it would actually improve the conditions in the region?

We have already demonstrated that the administration has never known what to do about post-Saddam Iraq, so why in the world would we think they would know what to do in a war with Iran?

Also, in case he hasn’t noticed, we are having problems staffing the military adequately and we are over-using the troops that we have. How in the world are we going to be able to sustain a war with Iran?

This isn’t a video game, Mr. Hinderaker, nor is it an episode of 24 — this is real life and if the Iraq situation should clearly illustrate that that world is a very complicated place. We have tried the ol’ “do it our way or we’ll pound you routine” and it hasn’t worked out too well.

Matthew Shugart raises an interesting and legitimate issue in the context of Senator Tim Johnson’s illness and potential incapacitation (or worse).

Shugart argues that we should do away with the ability of governors to appoint replacement Senators and simply have a special election immediately upon a vacancy.

He raises a legitimate point: why should a partisan official get to make the determination as to whom will serve in the Senate when the post is one that is meant to represent the electorate?

This issue will be especially salient this year, as at the moment, should Johnson leave office, a Republican governor would certainly replace Johnson (a Democrat) with a Republican, which would shift the Senate (as has been widely noted) to GOP control (a 50-50 tie with Cheney as tiebreaker). It is rather disproportionate, and undemocratic, that the governor of South Dakota would be in a position to make such a decision. While I think it likely that SD would elect a Republican to fill Johnson’s seat, that is by no means certain. And, at least then the decision would be made through elections, not fiat.

Via the AP: S.D. Sen. Johnson in critical condition

Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was in critical but stable condition Thursday after emergency brain surgery, creating political drama over whether Democrats will control the new Senate next month if he is unable to continue in office.

Johnson suffered from bleeding in the brain caused by a congenital malformation, the U.S. Capitol physician said. He described the surgery as successful. The condition, present at birth or immediately after, causes tangled blood vessels that can block the flow of blood or rupture.

It is a shame that the situation immediately leads to a political discussion, but I suppose it is hardly surprising.

At any rate, the phrase “bleeding in the brain” is enough to make anyone wince. Heaven knows this is difficult on his family and friends.

Hopefully he will fully recover.

The LAT reports: Voters favor McCain over Clinton in ‘08.

The poll also says the Clinton beats Romney and that paper beats rock.

My postings on Augusto Pinochet has resulted in a regular commenter accusing me of being “uptight” on the topic.

Clearly part of the reason is that I am a Latin Americanist by trade, and this is an issue that interests me. I have read a lot about it and that has inspired much to say on the subject.

However, here are some specifics on my views on this issue.

First, What do you Really Know About Chile? Most write about Chile as if Pinochet seized power from a Castro clone who had come to power illegitimately and who was poised to be dictator for life. Pinochet then went on, fixed the economy and gifted democracy to the Chilean people for the first time in their history. It is as if he was flawed, but ultimately benevolent and the right man at the right time in Chilean history.

The real story is more like this: Salvador Allende was legitimately elected in the context of a healthy democracy. And yes, he was a socialist and his policies were highly problematic. However, Pinochet took his lawful position as the commander of the Army (a position to which he had been appointed by Allende) conspired against the president and had the air force bomb the presidential palace while the presidential guard abandoned their duty.

To put this in US terms: If the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the US foments a coup tomorrow, and the Air Force bombs the White House and the Secret Service abandons the President, and if the Chairman takes control of the United States for 17 years, killing thousands of US citizens in the process, yet when he leaves power, the US economy is in good shape, would that absolve him of his crimes?

This in the scenario that we are talking about here and that I find impossible to defend or excuse.

Second, But he Left a Democracy in Chile!. First off, the simple retort there is: he broke the democracy in the first place. That he left the place with a democracy is, therefore, not that impressive. It certainly doesn’t absolve him of illegally taking power in the first place.

It’s like saying that the guy who threw me out of my house and lived there for seventeen years gave it back to me after he was done, so no harm done. And look! He added on a room and look at that backyard! Yep, that makes up for the seventeen years.

Further, the notion that it is somehow remarkable that a military government left power without a fight and there was a transition to democracy is not as unusual as some seem to think.

For example, every conservative’s favorite, Daniel Ortega, left power in 1990 in Nicaragua under means that were more democratic than the conditions under which Pinochet left. Any praise from Ortega forthcoming from the pro-Pinochet set? I suspect not.

The Brazilian military left under a peaceful process that led to full democracy in Brazil by 1990. Hooray for them. The Peruvian military allowed for a new constitution to be written in 1978 and for elections in 1980. The Argentine military simply quit and elections were held in 1983. Military regimes end for a variety of reasons. The fact that they transition to democracy, sometimes at the behest of the generals themselves does not absolve the regime of whatever crimes

The fact that Pinochet left is not as impressive as many have suggested.

The fact that he kept his job with the Army, and the fact that he made the way to be a Senator for life after he retired from that gig also makes his exit less virtuous than many have made it out to be.

Third, a Dictator is a Dictator. Part of the motivation in regards to soft-peddling Pinochet is that the Left doesn’t criticize their dictators enough (see this comment and see this post about Jonah Goldberg).

Let me say this: the fact that left-wing dictators aren’t criticized enough by the Left doesn’t mean Pinochet should get a pass.

Surely anyone who seized power illegally and kills and tortures his own citizens is worthy of some derision, regardless of his economic reforms.

Fourth, and Finally: Democracy Matters. Ultimately I find Pinochet to be offensive because he illegally used his position to tear down a democratic state. He and his conspirators took it upon themselves to override an election. That is not something the military should be during.

My “uptight” perspective is quite simple: I value democracy and I find it odd, if not offensive, that many people seem willing to ignore the affront to democracy that was the 1973 coup in Chile, as well as Pinochet’s 17 years in office, just because he engaged in some market reforms. A bloody coup and a repressive regime were not necessary to engage in neoliberal reforms.

Further, many of the commentators who think Pinochet deserves a pass are also ones who seemingly think that the US should be engaged in spreading democracy globally. It is logically inconsistent to say that democracy is the birthright of humanity and simultaneously praise a man who tore a democracy up because he thought it was the right thing to do.

Praise for an authoritarian dictator by people who have spent the last three years arguing for the virtue of democracy strikes me as very, very odd and intellectually inconsistent.

I also see a broader theme here: I get uptight about things like warrantless searches, expanding executive power, lack of Congressional oversight and so forth, while at least some of those who want to give Pinochet pass seem not to find these things problematic (Steyn comes to mind, and Goldberg as well).

There, maybe that’s my last uptight Pinochet post, and maybe it isn’t.

Via MySA.com: Rodriguez upsets incumbent Bonilla:

Former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez completed a stunning political turnaround Tuesday with an upset win over incumbent Republican Henry Bonilla that topped off the Democratic takeover of Congress.

Rodriguez overcame a huge financial disadvantage with the help of national party officials, who overhauled his campaign and spent aggressively on his behalf.

Bonilla, a 14-year incumbent, phoned Rodriguez to concede at about 9 p.m.

The seat in question is Texas 23.

Why the results now?

Tuesday’s runoff stemmed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last June that Texas Republican leaders breached the Voting Rights Act by slicing 100,000 Hispanics from the district in their 2025 remap. A three-judge panel answered by removing several largely Anglo Hill Country counties and pulling heavily Hispanic South Bexar County into the district.

Or, so it would seem, according to some fellow named Jim Rutz writing (what reads like a parody, but isn’t) at WorldNetDaily: A devil food is turning our kids into homosexuals

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you’re also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you’re a woman, you’re flooding your system with a substance it can’t handle in surplus. If you’re a man, you’re suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your “female side,” physically and mentally.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.

If you’re a grownup, you’re already developed, and you’re able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren’t so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you’re giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby’s endocrine system just can’t cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality.

That dreaded soy-based shrinkage is out to getcha!

There was a time when I thought that “homophobia” was a poorly coined term. However, it is clear that there are people who tuly fear homosexuality.

(Also: to read the above makes it sound like people are wasting an awful lot of money on birth control pills).

Seriously, this is just another glaring example of why I find it utterly impossible to take WND seriously. And BTW, Rutz has no scientific training whatsoever (at least none that his website notes). He has degrees in English, works as a writer and one of his bigger career feats (as he lists it) is that he was a very successful Amway distributer at one point in his life (you can’t make this stuff up). His current claim to fame is that he has written quite a bit on the home-church movement.

I would note that there are several ways to actually test Rutz’s theories. For one, testosterone treatment should “cure” homosexuality (in the article he clearly identifies lack of testosterone as the key cause of homosexuality in men–although that raises a question about what causes homosexuality in women). Second, given the demon invasion of soy-based products, there ought to be, if his hypothesis is correct, a radical, empirically measurable, increase in the number of male homosexuals in the population. Third, in cultures which eat a lot of soy, say in East Asia, we should find a substantially higher percentage of male homosexuals than in non-soy consuming populations.

(FYI: Some web-surfing to try and garner some actually information about estrogen and soy and I found the following FAQs via the University of Illinois written by like Ph.D.’s and stuff.)

And this is hy-larious.

Via the BoGlo: Kennedy drops support for Kerry in ‘08 presidential run

Kennedy said he doesn’t currently plan to endorse another candidate and still might support Kerry if Kerry decides to run. But in an hourlong interview with the Globe’s Washington bureau, Kennedy offered strong praise for two of Kerry’s possible presidential rivals: senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, calling them “formidable figures” who are connecting with rank-and-file Democrats.

Kennedy said his oft-stated commitment to support Kerry again was based on the assumption that Kerry would state his intentions by early 2025. Since Kerry pushed back his decision in the wake of following an election-eve “botched joke” that damaged his public standing, however, Kennedy said he has informed Kerry that he may get behind another Democrat for president.

What, did the coupon expire? Plus, it isn’t early 2025 yet. Indeed, the headline doesn’t really go with the content of the article.

“I was under more of the impression before that he was going to run and was waiting in time [to declare his candidacy], but now he’s deferred that decision,” Kennedy said. “I have no plans of supporting anyone else at this juncture. I’m also not going to just wait indefinitely until he’s made a judgment or a decision.”

Later in the day, Kennedy’s office issued a statement clarifying that Kennedy will support Kerry if he declares his presidential candidacy “in the near term,” though Kennedy aides declined to define that schedule.

That doesn’t sound like “dropping support” to me.

However, it does seem as if Kennedy is sending Kerry a not so subtle message about the “formidable figures” that are Clinton and Obama. By the same token, he is clearly hedging bets, since it isn’t 100% clear who is running for sure and who isn’t at this point, so why go out on a limb in support of anybody in particular? There is no need for him to lock in his support.

I will say that Kennedy’s statements have a lukewarmness to them that, no doubt, isn’t the kind of thing (or tone) that Kerry would like to be hearing from Kennedy.

Of course, I have long thought (and stated) that Kerry’s time is done in terms of presidential politics, and so lukewarmness from the senior Senator from Massachusetts is hardly a surprise.

Via Bloomberg: Dollar Falls After Greenspan Says He Expects Further Decline

The dollar fell the most in a week against the euro after former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the U.S. currency will probably keep dropping until the nation’s current-account deficit shrinks.

Perhaps someone should suggest to Greenspan that he might want to be quiet…

Via the AP: Ohio Rep. Kucinich to Run for President

(Yes, I am being a tad mean, but gee whiz, the guy wasn’t exactly a serious candidate last time. Indeed, here’s a classic quote from last time he ran).

Christopher Hitchens has an appropriate column on Pinochet today, wherein he rightly notes:

he earned a place in history as a treasonous and ambitious officer who was false to his oath to defend and uphold the constitution. His overthrow of civilian democracy, in the South American country in which it was most historically implanted, will always be remembered as one of the more shocking crimes of the 20th century.

His coup—mounted on Sept. 11, 1973, for those who like to study numinous dates—was a crime in itself but involved countless other crimes as well.

Further, he reminds us that one of his crimes was the assassination of a Chilen ex-patriot on US soil via car bomb:

Just a short walk from my apartment in Washington, D.C., is the memorial at Sheridan Circle to the murdered Orlando Letelier, a Chilean exile and former foreign minister who was blown up by a car bomb in rush-hour traffic on Sept. 21, 1976. It did not take very long to establish that this then-unprecedented atrocity on American soil, which also took the life of a U.S. citizen named Ronni Moffitt, was carried out on the orders of the late Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

Hardly laudable behavior–and one I suspect most Americans are unaware of/have forgotten. Indeed, the event was one of the few acts of international terrorism ever committed on US soil prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Hitchens also notes Operation Condor, of which the Letelier assassination was part. Here’s a description from a BBC piece

Operation Condor was founded in secret and remained a mystery until after democracy had returned to South America.

According to documents later discovered in Paraguay, it was established at a military intelligence meeting in Chile on 25 November 1975 - Gen Pinochet’s 60th birthday.

Delegates from five other countries were there: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay.

Following that meeting, the military governments of those nations agreed to co-operate in sending teams into other countries to track, monitor and kill their political opponents.

A joint information centre was established at the headquarters of the Chilean secret police, the Dina, in Santiago.

As a result, many left-wing opponents of military regimes in the region who had fled to neighbouring countries found themselves hunted down in exile.

[…]

Operation Condor might never have come to light at all but for a chance discovery in Paraguay in December 1992.

A local judge went looking for files on a former political prisoner at a police station in the capital, Asuncion - but instead he found detailed documents that have since been dubbed the Archives of Terror.

These contained information on hundreds of Latin Americans who had been secretly kidnapped, tortured and killed by the secret services of the military regimes involved.

Really, where is the room to praise this man or to be dismissive of his sins?

As you all likely know, the Iranians are having their conference on the Holocaust this week. Via the BBC (Iran defends Holocaust conference) we learn that one of the presenters is none other than David Duke:

Participants include a number of well-known “revisionist” Western academics. American David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, is to present a paper.

You can’t make this stuff up.

h/t: F&V.