Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
There are two parts to the Petraeus-is-trustworthy spin: that he's competent and knows what he's doing, and that he's not political and not partisan. But when you examine the evidence, this fantasy falls apart.
There are always complaints, after the straw poll is taken, that some candidate or another has "rigged the results." Well, duh. If you design a contest to see who can buy the most votes in the first place, it's a little ingenuous to complain about "rigging" anything.
Who would you like to see host a debate? Jews? Muslims? Mormons? Atheists? People who love Barry Bonds? Pickup truck owners? Prius owners? Surfers? Eagle Scouts? Medical marijuana patients? People who bought Paris Hilton's CD? People who bought K-Fed's CD? Snowmobile owners? Amateur pilots? Polygamists? Conspiracy theorists (man, wouldn't that make for good television!)? People who work in Starbucks? People who work in WalMart? People who don't work? People who make the minimum wage? Hedge fund managers? CEOs? Strippers? Waitresses? Flight attendants?
Republicans, it should be noted, are pretty dispirited going into this campaign. They feel the weight of the Iraq fiasco, they feel the weight of the fact that they've got a pretty disappointing field, and they feel the weight of President Bush dragging them ever downwards. In other words, Republicans are not happy campers when they think about the 2008 campaign.
Which will most likely lead them to the same calculation Democrats were making four years ago -- which candidate is most electable? Especially against Hillary. Or Barack. Or even Edwards. That's a cold political calculation to make, and it certainly won't be easy for Republican primary voters to make, considering the field.
Looking at the polling data for the early primary states (Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida) shows how volatile a race it is shaping up to be, in both parties. Looking at national polling shows clear frontrunners, but when you dig into the state data, things get cloudier. State polls can be seen at RealClearPolitics.com.
Muddying the waters even further (on the Democratic side) is the fact that most polls only collect data from "likely voters," or voters who answer "yes" as to whether they voted in the last election or not. This is usually a better predictor of the final results, but not always. If candidates can pull in a significant amount of votes from people who don't normally vote, they can prove all the pollsters wrong and win unexpected victories (see: Governor Jesse Ventura).
There is a bigger question than "Is it legal?" or "How can we change the law to make it legal?" which must also be addressed: "Should it be legal?" Due to the secrecy surrounding the law in Congress (national secrecy sometimes means closed sessions and secret laws), this debate may have to happen among the public, since the lawmakers may be unable to legally discuss the issue.
This argument will fall along the fault line of those who strongly believe in civil liberties (even if it makes intelligence and law enforcement work harder), and those who believe in security at all costs (even if it means their phone will occasionally be tapped by a computer).
But just because we've alienated both the Sunnis and the Shi'ites in Iraq, that doesn't mean we can't also upset the apple cart of our only success story in the country to date: the Kurds in the north of the country.
We have long succored the Kurds. The Kurdish region in Iraq is about the only place American soldiers can walk around without fear of imminent attack from the native populace. We have cultivated this relationship for a long time, and it is paying off dividends in many ways.
President Bush isn't going to back down, either. Even if a delegation from the Republican National Committee, with leading Republicans from the House and Senate, and even the ghost of Ronald Reagan marched down to the White House to "lay down the law" -- in other words, to tell him: "Mr. President, we will let you destroy your presidential legacy, but we will not allow you to destroy the entire national Republican party" -- even then, I just don't see Bush and Cheney backing down. Nixon, remember, did resign when faced with such a delegation from his own party, but I doubt Bush and Cheney will follow his example.
The Democratic debate would obviously be a race for second place, since Bill Clinton would wipe the floor with the entire field. Love him or hate him, you've got to admit Bill Clinton is one of the best politicians ever in the "debate" category. He would not only outshine everyone else, he would enjoy the hell out of himself while doing so.
