American DeTocqueville

I've moved!

2008-11-20T11:14:00.000-08:00

This blog hasn't been in service for quite some time... However, if you've liked what you've read, I'm now the writer/editor of www.allourmight.com - please click on over and check us out!

The Way Out: First steps.

2007-09-17T18:14:00.000-07:00

Republicans talk of political stability in Iraq created by a calmer security environment, which is facilitated by American military presence. Democrats want to force Iraqi political reconciliation by signaling to the Iraqi government that American forces won't be around forever by threatening a withdrawal of troops.

At this point, the basic aim of both parties is to convince Iraqi political parties that it is within their national interest to work together. The thinking goes that once all sides are locked into their positions within the government, the fighting will cease because militia bosses and their political patrons will be content with their place in the pecking order.

This logic fails to accept that the various warring parties do not want to resolve their centuries of religious, political, and ethnic differences, unless their sect is on top. Furthermore, this logic fails to accept that we are no longer in a "war". Instead, we should be simultaneously conducting a long-term police action along with deft diplomatic maneuvering designed to get a foreign government to act in American interests.

Let's then admit that diplomacy should take precedence over security, because political stability is the only condition under which we'll ever leave. And, by definition, diplomacy is using reward and punishment (or, "carrots and sticks" to use diplomatic vernacular) in order to get someone to act in your self interest.

What, then, is the carrot and stick that the US proposes to the Iraqis?

From the Republican perspective, there is neither: The Bush administration is obviously advocating that the sides reconcile, but without tangible motivation to do so either in terms of political or financial reward, without obvious punishment if they don't. No carrot, no stick, no progress.

From the Democrat perspective, at least there's a (proposed) stick: if the sides don't reconcile, they propose we leave. In other words, failure to make political progress will be punished by even greater levels of insecurity. Where is the Democrat carrot? If the Democrats are serious about a different course in Iraq, then there has to be a motivating factor for the Iraqis to work together.

SOLUTIONS:

One guaranteed carrot is exactly the opposite of what the Democrats have proposed: Turn our withdrawal from a stick into a carrot. If the sides take steps to pass legislation, then guarantee that each milestone achieved will be guaranteed to be met by a predetermined withdrawal of troops. It's unquestionable that the political parties' constituents want the US to go home. Make that promise, but attach it to progress.

Here's where the refocused stick comes in: taking the fight to them. Promise complete destruction without progress, and then show them by attaching punishment to lack of progress.

But also, solutions start by talking to the people who matter: the extremist warlords, not the government. Find out what they want, then work on a way to give it to them within an acceptable American framework. Peace in Northern Ireland finally looks like it's about to work because the erstwhile extremists -- Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley -- sat down and agreed to terms to live together. On the other hand, 2000's near Israel-Palestine Camp David Summit failed because Arafat couldn't placate the extremists back home.

Post-Patraeus Testamony

2007-09-10T10:43:00.001-07:00

When General David Patraeus is finally done testifying infront of the various House committees, what will we have learned?

-- It is fair to examine any witnesses credentials, whether they be civilian or military, Republican or Democrat, Superman or Lex Luthor. Every man, woman, and child is born with biases which are difficult to completely repress, particularly if you are testifying on how well you're doing in your own job.

-- Some of the numbers General Patraeus has already provided in his testimony are misleading. At one point, he claimed that violence has decreased in the past TWO WEEKS, and that that number is a sign that the "surge" is working. Two weeks is a data-point, not a trend.

-- Al-Qa'ida in Iraq is going to have a field day with this testamony. Look for increased operations and attacks in the next few months, just to prove the man wrong.

-- General Patraeus will not convince anyone of anything. In such a politically charged environment with an election looming, this is a sad thing.

-- "Christina's Court", a daytime courtroom reality show somewhat akin to Judge Judy and currently showing in DeTocque's office, may provide more high-brow exchanges on the law. At least Judge Christina is a little more attractive than Petraeus. But just a little.

-- General Petraeus says that his testamony was not prepared with the help of the White House. Interesting that he suggested a significant withdrawl of troops in summer 2008, right before the election.

The Security Offensive

2007-08-30T05:59:00.001-07:00

The Dems fear of being painted "soft on terrorism" will be their albatross through this election cycle, and probably the next. Read about it here in the Washington Post.

(Pelosi scared of taking the security offensive?)

Even though they're in the majority in Congress, the article fails to point out that they have to play to the Administration's tune on this because, well, the Administration has long-since seized the alleged security high ground. Every Dem from Maine to Hawaii can picture the 30-second adverts come July '08 saying, "Do you really want to vote for 'Dem Candidate X' who voted against the following national security bills???? (cue scary music)". This makes them do silly things like talking a tough game on civil liberties then blindly reauthorizing the FISA bill.

Why not turn the tide on the administration? It seems like the Dems are caught in the spot of having to constantly debate Republican-proposed national security bills. Where are their Democratic-sponsored alternatives? Instead of opposing a FISA bill, why don't they PROpose an alternate version. This is what the majority does -- control the agenda, right? Is the issue that these Patriot Act-esque laws need consistent reauthorizing, and therefore must be debated? Could be... So why not simultaneously vote the Republican version down, and approve your own?

Which is Worse?

2007-08-29T07:48:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been a great break over the summer, but DeTocque should probably get back in action.
Read this piece in the FT, on Bush's speech regaring the future of the Middle East.

Frankly, and disappointingly, on the finer technical points of the US abandoning Iraq, it's rather hard to completely disagree with this doomsday scenario (though his choice of prose and delivery-style continue to induce fits of wretching):

His point is this: on a macro-level, a US withdrawl would very likely strengthen (nay, do I hear an "embolden"?) the influence of Iran, Syria et al, and could, in theory, lead to a some sort of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Fair enough. You can cobble together his logic from the article. It might be the worse-case, but hey, that's probably where this thing is headed, right?

So, DeTocque submits this, gentle readers:

The Bushies are talking themselves in circles (again). Since 2003, the public has heard, "Okay, even though we didn't technically find WsMD, the world is a better place because Saddam is gone." So, if we begrudgingly accept that the some group will remained threatened or repressed no matter which course on the space-time continuum we take, which is worse -- to leave Saddam in power, free to reign despotically but isolatedly over the Shi'a and Kurds, OR TO PERMIT AN ENTIRE REGION TO GAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

How ironic, then: by trying to rid Iraq of it's WsMD, the Bush administration has given them to the rest of the reigon.

McCain in Trouble

2007-07-03T04:09:00.001-07:00

Check out this article on John McCain's staggering campaign effort, from the NYT. This is a pointed validation of the danger of getting into the campaign too early. Just think about where McCain would be today if people were begging him to get in the race because they were unhappy with the rest of the field. Instead, the faithful are dying to have a Fred Thompson or a Newt get in to spice things up.

Perhaps this bodes well for future races as candidates realize the downsides of a two-year campaign.

First blog ever?

2007-06-21T16:56:00.000-07:00

Was here: Okay, so maybe not this EXACT one... But think about it -- what other format allowed, nay PERMITTED, free flowing prose, poetry, art, and other forms of both intellectual and unintelligible exchanges than your friendly bathroom wall? DeTocque's favorite "early blog" would have to be at The Raven in DC's Mt. Pleasant neighborhood.

Romney swings and misses again

2007-06-21T16:48:00.000-07:00

Someone please tell Mitt to Quit. He's embarrassing himself again, with this video. (And believe me, DeTocque hates giving the man's website the extra clicks, but the entertainment value is probably worth it...) Here's the corresponding article on Slate.

Politics immitates life... how delicious

2007-06-18T00:30:00.000-07:00

One cannot but pause and consider the flabbergasting parallels between French ex-Socialist presidential Segolene Royal's separation from here longtime partner (and current Socialist Party chief) Francois Hollande. For those who do not follow French politics, their relationship was much more than schoolkids playing kissy-face behind the playground: they were, in the best and worst of French time-honored traditions, married. With four children. (And for the announcement, see Le Monde's article. Or in English from the likely-jubilant Times of London.)

While denying that the split had nothing to do with politics, it safely had very much to do with politics, and probably a bit to do with Hollande's bit (see Times article). But the point holds: A domestic dispute has now come to symbolize the near-term evolution of the French Socialist Party, as the two ex-loves wrestle for control.

The problem is that neither one seems to have a viable plan for the shake-up the Socialists desperately need to become "electable" again: If Sego's presidential campaign is a good barometer, she's set to increase social spending without a coherent plan to pay for it, and Hollande, party chief since 1997 is an old voice who hasn't really done anything more than stifle the right-leaning Presidents since he took power. Hollande is due to step down in 2008, but we'll see if he goes earlier.

In the meantime, the PS should really be searching high and low for that dynamic Blairite modernizer: the one who will reign in the unions (assuming Sarko doesn't do it for them!), and openly adopt capitalism and globalization as the undeniable trends of the future. It's unbelievable to have to write that in 2007, but such statements reflect current PS thinking.

Oh, yeah: And Sarko did okay yesterday in round two, as well. While not kicking down any doors (and apparently losing Alan Juppe along the way), the UMP has enough deputies to do as it pleases. It's probably a good thing that the Socialist's capitalized on the UMP's gaffe of announcing a 24%ish VAT target and the "please don't let Sarko do as he pleases" vote. Strong opposition is always a positive thing.

Short term currency worries

2007-06-13T20:56:00.000-07:00

The recent Sino-American dispute over the undervalued renminbi has caught DeTocque's wandering eye for the moment... Its domestic implications in US politics have not gone unnoticed. (See FT article here.)

The issue boils down to the fact the Senators, Congressmen, and Hank Paulson all want the Chinese currency to be worth a bit more (say about 10% more according to recently published reports) on the open market. Politicians may claim bipartisan support for a new Senate bill, but really anyone would support a bill that increases your constituents' exports...

By (admittingly) keeping the renminbi undervalued, the Chinese government has fueled a record trade surplus with the US in recent years (meaning the Chinese have exported about $233bn more to the US than they have imported from the US). So, the US is seeking to rectify that imbalance by legalizing US interference in the currency market -- the Americans would buy renminbi with dollars, thereby increasing the value of the renminbi and allowing newly, more wealthy Chinese consumers to more cheaply purchase US goods. Net result: Chinese buy more Fords, US bonds, Big Macs and iPods because their currency is worth more. Good for Joe Schmoe in Iowa, and good for his Congressman.

However, the Chinese government actually has a very good reason to keep the renminbi undervalued -- though their economy is going like gangbusters, per capita GDP is still tiny compared to the US. Now pretend for a second that all these Fords and iPods started flooding into China because Chinese purchasers opt for a relatively cheaper US car (of higher quality) over an absolutely cheaper Chinese-produced version (of still lower quality)... In other words, you average Chinese citizen could have never dreamed of a top-of-the-line US product and had always opted for the cheap-o domestic version. Suddenly, with the stronger renminbi, the US product is more within reach, so they go for it.

Two things result: 1. the Chinese inflation rate increases at a hurried pace for domestic AND imported goods, and many people are suddenly priced out of the market (read: disaster). Prices have gone up so fast and wages haven't kept pace... 2. No one but a local would ever want a Chinese company's computer. If their sales go down as consumers opt for American versions, Chinese computer company's profits shrink, and the economy slows.

With that, the Chinese just can't raise the value for practically humanitarian reasons -- the local level of the Chinese economy would be severely and catastrophically effected. The renminbi will gain value through nature market forces as the Chinese economy continues to get up to speed. American politicians should let it do so.

Bush and Putin repeating history?

2007-06-05T00:50:00.000-07:00

If you were filling out an SAT exam, and one of those ever-so-occasionally difficult "A is to B... as C is to _" questions came up, how would you answer the following:

BUSH > PUTIN as TRUMAN > __________

Well, perhaps this isn't so difficult because, well, STALIN was in power round about when Harry was, so you do have limited choices. Why the comparison?

DeTocque was struck by this article in today's FT. Basically, we have Putin reading Bush the riot act over this missile defense nonsense, while Bush's response is, in typical black-and-white Bushish, "Russia is not hostile. Russia is our friend." (DeTocque will avoid the probably necessary dissertation on W's simplistic language, but beg someone out there to write it, just for comedy's sake.)

Digressions aside, the Angry, Stubborn Ruskie and Pliant President sound eerily similar to character traits as explained in an excellent book DeTocque is finally finishing: "From Roosevelt to Truman" by Fr. Wilson Miscamble. The point here is that Stalin, despite having a weaker hand post-WWII (no A-bomb, little involvement in the Japanese theater, among other things) basically bullies Truman, SecState Byrnes, et al into accepting proportionally greater Soviet influence in the post-war make up of Europe (the greatest example of this would be the US abandoning Poland), just by being cantankerous.

Why would the comparatively stronger Truman accept such great Soviet influence? Because, Miscamble argues convincingly, he made the strategic decision to continue FDR's approach of emphasizing cooperation, even when it was against US-strategic interest, with the Soviets above all else.

The parallels are, of course, by no means exact, but they do merit mention.

Second Wave Coming Soon

2007-06-02T00:26:00.000-07:00

So guess where DeTocque is? Shrimps on the barbie anyone?
_____________________
We're now hitting a much-welcomed lull in the "I'm-running-for-President-and-I-will-raise-more-cash-than-you" sweepstakes. Now is the time for a collective sigh of relief.

But what lies ahead? Yup, it's the second wave of announcements!

If you're in your party's contest already, chances are you're a newbie (Obama), have never done this before (Rudy), an insufferable media-hog (Hilary), or dumb (McCain). Look for the Al Gores, the Newts, the Fred Thomsons to start jumping in.

Frankly, the second wavers look brilliant at this point. Here's why:

1. They've allowed the country to listen to the initial field from each party, and can assess where the early birds fall short. It's no secret that the Republicans do not have a super-star candidate that the hard-core faithful can get behind, so Newt and Fred may start looking to fill that void. Ditto for Al Gore: he's said a million times that's he's not running, until he realizes that Hillary is unelectable, and people are still gun-shy on Barrack.

2. The first rounders have raised tons of cash, true enough. But they're going to spend it all, and soon, to beat each other up. Look for the second wave to get in once everyone's coffers start to dwindle and the field thins a bit. This is particular precarious for the Republicans -- if anyone actually starts listening to a Mike Huckabee type (ie, a candidate with a mainstream message who just hasn't caught-on yet), the spending will go into overdrive to thwart him. And then, Enter His Newtness into a taxed out field.

3. The media cycle will give the second rounders much, much more coverage than the firsters. The reality-TV-channel that is FOXNews is probably so sick of giving Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul (whose name is perfect for the adult-film industry, by-the-by) legit air-time that they're dying to burn thousands of feet of film on the Newt.

4. And finally, let's face it -- you don't get burned out so much if you only spend 14 months running for Prez instead of 24...

Sarko effectively sinking the PS?

2007-05-30T22:55:00.000-07:00

Sarkozy's appointment of Bernard Koucher is striking for many reasons.

For one, it means Sarko may actually be seeking to forward traditionally FRENCH (not Gaullist) issues in foreign affairs: Koucher seems reasonably tolerant of the US, is actively involved in humanitarian prospects, and shares many of his boss's pro-EU opinions. This likely signals that Sarko is dead serious about rising above the partisan fray. Interesting. Sarko even went as far as to include seven women in the cabinet... Well done indeed.

As a subset of Koucher's appointment as FM, it's notable that Sarko would give that post to a member of the opposition -- foreign relations are traditionally the role of the President, while the PM controls more of the domestic agenda. In effect, Koucher position, by design, is kept on a short lease to the Elysee and therefore Sarko effectively retains a direct veto over anything Koucher might do that wouldn't be 100% kosher with the big boss.

Two, look what it's doing to the Socialists -- they've since ousted Koucher, and are practically conceding any hope of a majority in next month's elections to the Assemble Nationale. Ladies and gents, start your engines, because we may be in for an entertaining power struggle when the dust settles. The PS has one very important question it must answer: does it truly embrace the market economy? Where is its Tony Blair, great capitalist modernizer of Labour? Blair made Labour electable, and the PS is clearly not. It might not be too far of a stretch to see the PS fracture into a "Social Democratic" party and some harder lefties...

Gingrich makes his appeal to the disenfranchised right

2007-05-20T11:36:00.000-07:00

Newt Gingrich's appearance on Meet the Press was aimed at one audience: Hard core Republicans who view the Bush administration as both incompetent and traitorous to key Republican values. Gingrich talked tough on Iraq, used a plethora of references to Ronald Reagan (a sure sign you're talking to misty-eyed conservative ideologists), and had, well, pretty much all the answers.

Middle America probably loved it.

Two problems jumped out, however:

1. He was long on proposed solutions, but didn't account for any sort of political opposition. DeTocque will happily throw out 20 proposed changes to "Win in Iraq", but it's the EXECUTION of those things which seems to get everyone in trouble.

2. If he does decide to run for President (which will probably be determined by poll numbers based on appearances like this), he WILL fill a void amongst Republican candidates, but he WON'T get very far: when push comes to shove, he'll lose out when his opponents keep bringing up that nasty affair he had while leading the impeachment charge. He might talk the talk, but the evangelicals will have their say...

USS ALBERTO GONZALES takes on more water.

2007-05-16T17:42:00.000-07:00

Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony today on the Hill was nothing short of jaw droppingly flabberghasting. Insane. The stuff Hollywood courtroom dramas are made of. We'll save the details, and just let you read them here.

Here are the salient points:

1. It's astounding that John Ashcroft comes out of the situation looking like a saint by respecting th Comey's authority in a situation where he had delegated power.

2. Alberto Gonzales gets yet another strike against him. If the man survives in this job, DeTocque has a horse he wants Alberto to sell you. No matter what else he has done behind closed doors at the DoJ, good or bad, the US attorneys' affair and this should be able to sink anyone, even if your best buddy is the most powerful man in the world.

3. Why is this story just hitting the papers now? It's over four years old. In examining the US attorneys' scandal, did someone tell someone that Comey had something else negative to say about all this?

4. Congrats to Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller, et al. for having the decency to prepare their resignations on this and stand up for their beliefs.

5. Andy Card sure looks like a slime ball.

6. Bush, despite compromising in the end and allowing the eavesdropping authorization to be modified, actually deserves no credit for bending on this -- if a rash of high profile resignations hit the press three years ago, the political mess would have been far worse. He did what any politician would do.

7. DeTocque's $20 is on James Comey to be the next AG. It's the perfect face-saving situation in all this: Alberto, scarred multiple times, resigns, and Comey, with plenty of experience and now the darling of the Democrat-controlled Senate judiciary committee, sails through his confirmation hearing.

Bush's poodle?

2007-05-10T15:35:00.000-07:00

Tony Blair announced that he would step down on 27 June and finally transfer power to, presumably, the rather anxious Gordon Brown, who has been jumping up and down like an eight year old needing the bathroom for about the last four years as Tony clings to power.

Much of the commentary (for an example, see here) makes reference to Blair being "Bush's poodle". But perhaps he's not, or at least, not out of the ordinary. Post WWII history has shown that, when on the world stage since the disaster of the Suez Crisis, British PM's have traditionally chosen to influence American foreign policy by using their position as a trusted ally to nuance the Superpower's action in the direction of Britain's national interest: Two of the most "special relationships" include Harold Macmillan leaning on JFK to get nuclear missile defense of the UK and Europe, and Margaret Thatcher's heavy influence on Ronald Reagan.

Using this historical precedent, if Blair had independently concluded that invading Iraq was also in the UK's national interest, then he had every reason to support the invasion in 2003. And, more importantly, his influence was heavily present through the entire process, right up to the last days before the invasion when he forced Bush to take his case for war back to the UN for a second resolution.

Let's not jump to conclusions because Blair chose to commit troops to Iraq -- he did so because he thought it was in the UK's national interest, used Britain's historically most successful foreign policy mechanism to achieve his aims, and steered Bush in the direction of multilateralism (even though it was a relatively futile effort).

****

Getting into musical recommendations, check out Wilco's new release Sky Blue Sky... Half way through the first listen, it's a different, more straightforward record, but still up to the high standards of "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" and "A Ghost is Born."

French election rehash

2007-05-08T19:10:00.000-07:00

Congrats to the 47% of the French populace who have proven DeTocque to be mostly wrong... While there were sporadic riots following Nicolas Sarkozy's triumph on Sunday, by-and-large, the masses have just eaten their cake and laid low. Since the election had a huge turnout, was fair, and not contested by Sego, the 47% probably just felt exhausted. Sego is actually lucky that the center-right fielded such a personally unlikeable candidate as Sarko, otherwise you could probably add about 2-3% to his total: far too many Sego voters were in the "anyone but Sarko" camp.

(an unflattering mock-up of Sego)

Where does this leave the French Socialist Party?

Frankly, it's in a tight spot, and has some serious contemplating to do in order to reemerge as a truly viable political force in France. While Segolene certainly had her draw-backs as a candidate, it was the image of France's future that the Socialists have to rework: the world is a global economy, and nothing will change that. Nothing. Multinational corporations will merge and manual labor jobs will be lost as the industrial sector continues to shift towards the developing world. So, instead of grasping to the hope that France fights to relatively low-paying jobs in protected "national champion" industries, the French Socialists simply must go the Clintonian-Blairite "Third Way" and be a modern Socialist party which espouses social justice and embraces globalization. For starters, they should encourage social justice by providing the mechanisms necessary for citizens to advance along with globalization, rather than fight against it.

French election drawing to a close

2007-05-01T14:56:00.000-07:00

DeTocque is back and in fine form after a lovely ten-day repose on the beaches of Central America.

But on to the French elections... We won't get into the nasty electoral politics at this juncture, as both Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royale have turned it into a vote into a nasty character referendum (surprised? when was the last time anyone heard of a civil election with so much at stake?), but DeTocque will make one rather not-so-bold prediction if Sarko wins: there'll be protests, and tons of them, and for weeks on end.

While everyone and their dog knows that France is a nation of protesters, the protesting-prone portion of the population is over-represented in those who would traditionally vote for Sego -- the unions, the lower middle class, the students. If they don't get what they want, it's second nature to take to the streets.

Two aspects about this are of significance:

1. If a Sarko victoire causes demonstrations en masse, this should pose profound questions to French philosophers about whether the French psyche is really accepting of representative democracy. (Since a) a Sarko vicotory and b) demonstrations have not happened yet, DeTocque will only expound on this point should a) and b) actually come to pass).

2. How would Sarko react? His authoritarian style would default to heavy police presence and strong-armed strike-breaking mentality, but DeTocque guesses the new president would want to win over his new subjects and let them paralyze the country for a week or two. Only if the pagaille drags on would the batons come out.

Snarlin' Arlen et al.

2007-04-19T19:28:00.000-07:00

Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) did an excellent job of remaining objective in their questioning of AG Alberto Gonzales. While it's easy to argue that these politicians are using Gonzales' testamony as a vehicle to distance themselves from an increasingly unpopular White House, the bottom line is that something funny is going on at the Department of Justice, and the answers are not adding up. They should be commended for doing the right thing and not giving Gonzales a free pass.

Doolittle gets Done

2007-04-19T14:32:00.000-07:00

The hits keep on coming for those with connections to the Jack Abramoff to-do. The latest to tiptoe to the edge of the high-dive is northern California Republican Congressman John Doolittle.

The story goes like this:

1. Doolittle's wife creates company as a fundraiser
2. Doolittle hires wife's company to raise funds for Doolittle's 2006 re-election campaign
3. Doolittle's wife charges said re-election campaign 15% of value of donations, nicely funding Doolittle's personal, as well as political, coffers.
4. Doolittle's wife company, and Doolittle himself, have a lot to do with Jack Ambramoff, who has contributed to Doolittle's re-election campaign AND hired wife's company
5. Feds get wise, start investigation
6. Doolittle resigns leadership post on House committee.

For a current resume of events, click here. For background articles, try here and here.

DeTocque wonders if this is the tipping point or just the wake of political corruption. Kudos to Republican House leader John Boehner for forcing Doolittle off the committee. But the larger questions remains: is Doolittle off the committee only because he got caught? Does this merely force the corrupt ones further underground? Will party leaders be forthright in admitting all cases of corruption and removing the guilty (or at least the ones with Virginia farm boys poking around their back yards)? Will the public stand for it?

We know that politicians generally act in concert with their level of nervousness about their chances for re-election. If the Republicans weren't facing such an uphill climb in 2008, would Boehner even care?

****

DeTocque is off for some loverly RnR to Central America as of tomorrow. Back on April 30.

Fundraising Alert on Romney

2007-04-11T19:49:00.000-07:00

Regular readers of American DeTocqueville will recall this site's general distaste for the Mitt Romney campaign. And it's not because he's a Mormon. It's because he's a CEO who is more determined to win the presidency than to stand for his true convictions (and we don't know what those would be, because the Mitt is too busy changing his stance to appeal to the conservative base or the his state's population, depending on in which election he's currently running). Insert perfect hair joke here.

But wait! News from this week brings a whisper of potency from Camp Mitt in the form of $21 mil in campaign contributions, which surpassed John McCain's paltry $12 big ones. And that will get you a lot of funny underware. Apologies for cheap-shot Mormon joke.

At this time, DeTocque would like to make a bold prediction: this cold, hard, cash will get Mitt nowhere unless he uses it to take the bus. Based on the article linked above from the Politico.com, a good chunk of Mitt's funding comes from a Political Action Committee called Eagle PAC. While avoiding direct statements or obvious linkages to the Church of Later-Day Saints, Eagle PAC is essentially a fundraising bully to support Mormon candidates. Problem is, there really aren't that many Mormons, and DeTocque surmises that the politically active ones have already donated large sums. That's all they're willing to turn out their pockets for (and thus risk exposing their funny underware. Sorry again, can't help it).

Compare this with Barack Obama's cash haul, and Mitt is really in trouble. Barack is beginning to cultive a 100,000-strong base, small-donation, fundraising army, which is already giving him tons of cash. Mitt has a small base, large-donation, one-trick pony. Obama's people are nationwide and probably willing to put signs in their front yard. No one will see a Romney sign this side of the Great Salt Lake.

Romney might stick around through a primary or two because he can continue to pay his staff, but his donations might not have much staying power if all that cash doesn't produce a slow, steady uptick in his poll numbers.

GWOT no more

2007-04-09T19:22:00.000-07:00

An article from last week's Military Times points out that Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee will no longer be using the term "Global War on Terrorism." In contrast to many of the reader comments at the end of the piece (which make for wonderful reading if you're in the mood to get first-hand evidence of Republican's knack for brainwashing constituents), DeTocqueville heartily applauds this effort, for one simple reason:

It's time we moved on.

The term "Global War on Terrorism" is a political catch-phrase designed to maintain terrorism's omnipresence in today's 24-hour news cycle. It is meaninglessly tossed around by undereducated elected government officials to strike fear into the hearts of those who cannot independently vet today's threat from Islamic extremism.

What's worse, you can't fight a war against something that can't sign a peace treaty.

When Von Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means, this isn't what he meant. He was not referring to electoral politics, as is the case with the "War on Terror". He was addressing the failure of international diplomacy. We've had plenty of failure in diplomatic circles, and the time is right for our governments to stop using this generic term to perpetuate fear of imminent, mass casualty attacks amongst the general populace.

Ditching this term is but the first step in the American government owning up to its plethora of mistakes in what begain as a limited conflict against a small group of nomadic Islamic extremists. It is the adminstration's fault for taking UBL's bait in turning the issue into a global cause celebre. Hopefully this is an indication of a radical strategic overhaul, but no one hold their breath just yet...

Nancy's Greater Middle East Initiative

2007-04-05T21:25:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi is in the Middle East this week for one reason: to show American voters that the Democratic party favors dialogue with, rather than isolation of, one's diplomatic adversaries. As George Bush has been slow to take up the recommendations of the Iraq study group, Pelosi and her Dem counterparts have seized the opportunity to engage the Syrian government and elements of the Palestinian Authority. She's scheduled to stop in Saudi Arabia, too, but that's most likely because she was just in the neighborhood.

And let's face it, this is solid strategy. Suddenly, every farmer in South Dakota has become an expert on US foreign policy. At least they're starting to pay attention to it, anyway. When talking heads throw around "engage" vs. "isolate" strategies on meaningless, yet highly rated, political talk shows, the US voting public is more educated on these issues now than ever before. Pelosi knows W has awful approval ratings, particularly in the foreign policy arena, and she knows that W favors isolating one's "enemies." She's hoping that voters realize W's diplomatic strategy is poor, and her tour to Syria just might pay dividends at the polls come 2008.

Pelosi in Damascus; Bush Cranky

2007-04-03T19:34:00.000-07:00

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lead a congressional delegation to Damascus, and was hailed in one local article as almost an Eva Peron type figure. Her visit with Syrian President Assad ruffled some feathers back home, as Bush blurts out continually insightful passages:

From the treasonous NYT: President George W. Bush criticized Ms. Pelosi’s visit today during a news conference at the White House. He said the visit sent “mixed signals” that “lead the Assad government to believe they are part of the mainstream of the international community, when in fact they are a state sponsor of terror”.

But why didn't he make the same fuss when a congressional delegation of three Republicans (Congressmen Robert Aderholt, Joe Pitts, and Frank Wolf) visited Syria met separately with Assad on Sunday ?

This is probably a case of Bush trying to get the publicity associated with attacking Pelosi's ad hoc diplomacy (or just attacking Pelosi ad hoc) and hoping no one would notice the members of his own party sneaking into the country the day before (oops). The White House may have figured that it could claim in hindsight that the "mixed signals" to which it was referring were the multiple congressional delegations. That is, "shoot, we sent over a bunch of Republicans just the day before to deliver our message, so Nancy's just getting in the way and clouding the picture."

Of course, that gets messy when you realize that the administration has gone out of its way in the recent past to say that there's no message to deliver...

In the end, it's clear that the White House now values at least some engagement with its "enemies" but is likely slamming Pelosi's visit to appease the hard-line faction of its base. Hardly seems like a productive strategy.

New DeTocqueville Bio

2007-04-02T19:30:00.000-07:00

DeTocque must take pause for a moment to engage in the wonderful world of home renovation, but in the meantime, please note the new bio on our hero, reviewed here.