Final Political Predictions Before Primaries

Back in August, I had this to say about the 2008 Presidential Election.
And the following is a quick summary of my August predictions:
Democratic Nominee: Hillary Clinton (VP: Wesley Clark or Jim Webb)
Republican Nominee: Fred Thompson (VP: Mike Huckabee or Mark Sanford)

Now it is December 6 and only 28 days until the beginning of the presidential primary season. Everything is the same with my August predictions with one major exception: I now predict that Mike Huckabee will get the Republican nomination. As I predicted in August, Huckabee is the dark horse for the Republican presidential nomination. He is now second in Iowa and might very well win that state and the nomination. In the end, Huckabee is the "ideal" candidate for the Republicans because he's young, a counter to Clinton in Arkansas, and a member of the religious right. However, Huckabee must turn early victories into financial windfalls or he will not make it very far on Super Tuesday (February 5, 2007). Nonetheless, I believe he is positioned to steal the political fortunes of Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain.

In August, the momentum was certainly with Thompson, but he has since squandered a chance to obtain the nomination. I believe his late entry, age, and lack of enthusiasm have contributed to his decline. Other major factors are the staying power of Romney and the rising power of Mike Huckabee. Romney has assembled a solid foundation in the early states which has fended off potential challengers with one exception. Huckabee, with the religious right starting to take notice, is beginning to challenge Romney. Nonetheless, I still believe Romney, Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain will do well enough to make it to the end of February, but Huckabee's rising political status and surprise victories will ultimately put Thompson and the others out of contention.

Let me reiterate that I do not believe Romney or Giuliani will get the Republican nomination because one is in the "wrong" religion (Mormonism) and the other "isn't religious enough." This is by no means their fault. It is the fault of the political party they support and aspire to lead. Unfortunately, the Republican Party is becoming more exclusive. President George W. Bush is the new precedent for future Republican nominees. Not only did he openly seek and accept the support of the religious right (nothing new), but he often professed private matters of faith and how they personally guided his decisions as the leader of a secular government. Under Bush, the line between Church and State has certainly gotten smaller, and he was not ashamed to throw the religious right red meat when he or the party needed their support.

As a result, the religious right will compare any future nominee to the standard Bush has set. The thought of President Romney or Giuliani scares many people, but I just don't see the U.S. or world falling apart if they win. But I just don't think they will get the nomination in a party that is becoming increasingly theocratic (in the Christian sense). Is it any wonder that Huckabee is gaining steam? If this trend continues I suspect the Republican Party will eventually split. Until then, those who proclaim blind allegiance to the religious right have a distinct advantage when it comes to getting the Republican nomination.

So my final prediction for the presidential primaries is this:
Democrats: Hillary Clinton (VP: Wesley Clark or Jim Webb)
Republicans: Mike Huckabee (VP: Mark Sanford)

As I mentioned in August, there is one caveat. If the U.S. is attacked again or war breaks out with Iran, the Republican nomination is likely to go to McCain, Giuliani, or Thompson. That is a big IF, but it would certainly change the dynamics of the race for both Republicans and Democrats.

I will now give my preferences for president as they are different from my projections. I seriously doubt I will vote for Huckabee or Clinton if they are the nominees. The only way I will consider voting for Clinton is if she offers the vice-presidency to Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, or Gravel. This is unlikely to happen even for Obama or Edwards. Therefore, I am left with the following:
Wishful-thinking choices for president: Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Ralph Nader
Realistic choices for president: Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani seems like an odd pick, but he is similar to the Democrats on some issues (especially social ones). And he certainly appears more compassionate, level-headed, and intelligent than President Bush or any of the other Republican candidates. But one major negative for me is that he continues to support the war in Iraq. This I can not accept.

Unfortunately, the only way I see Obama getting the Democratic nomination is if Edwards drops out early and throws his support to him. I doubt this will happen. Even if it did, it would still be very difficult to stop Clinton. I will likely vote for Nader, Michael Bloomberg (if they run), or some other third party candidate if Clinton gets the nomination. Until that officially happens, there's always the audacity of hope...

For the record, I will not contribute financial support to any candidate until the primaries are over and the ballots are set. Unfortunately, my vote on May 13, 2008 will be a moot point since the nomination will be wrapped up well before then. No wonder voters feel disenfranchised. The primaries are in serious need of reform. One suggestion is having the federal government divide the states into regions which vote first (like Iowa and New Hampshire) on a rotating basis. Another idea is having all states vote at once. I prefer the former because it allows candidates a chance to hone their political skills and more importantly, empowers voters (from different areas) with the opportunity to shape the political process and discourse.

Football Predictions

NFL: The New England Patriots look very strong, but they are not beyond vulnerability. Injuries late in the season or peaking too early can undo any team. I doubt they will finish the regular season undefeated, but if they do, more power to them. If the Patriots stumble in the playoffs, it will more than likely be to the Indianapolis Colts.

In the NFC, I believe the Green Bay Packers will beat the Dallas Cowboys tonight but lose to them in the playoffs.

Playoff Projections
AFC
New England Patriots
Indianapolis Colts
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Diego Chargers
Jacksonville Jaguars (wild card)
Cleveland Browns (wild card)

NFC
Dallas Cowboys
Green Bay Packers
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Seattle Seahawks
New York Giants (wild card)
Winner of Philadelphia Eagles and New Orleans Saints on December 23 gets the final wild card

Super Bowl 42: New England Patriots over the Dallas Cowboys
A no brainer but not a certainty by any means

College: I'm seriously considering a boycott of college football if they do not implement a playoff system. To not have one is simply asinine. The crazy thing is you can still retain the top 15 major bowls with a 16-team playoff format. With this format, 15 games would be played over a period of four weeks. Each of the 15 games could be played as corporate-sponsored bowls with the final 7 games designated to the Sugar, Orange, Tostitos, Rose, Capital One, Cotton, and Gator Bowls on a rotating basis.

Anyway, here are my bowl projections
Orange: Georgia vs. Virginia Tech (or Boston College)
Sugar: LSU vs. Hawaii
Rose: USC vs. Ohio State
Tostitos: Oklahoma vs. Arizona State
Allstate Championship Bowl: West Virginia vs. Missouri

I might very well skip the BCS this season if Hawaii doesn't get into a BCS bowl. Even Kansas might not make it to a BCS bowl at 11-1. And if Ohio State makes it back to the Championship Bowl by default, I will certainly cheer for the other team.

Petraeus' Testimony

Here is what General Petraeus had to say...

"Nonetheless, there are reasons for optimism. Today approximately 164,000 Iraqi police and soldiers (of which about 100,000 are trained and equipped) and an additional 74,000 facility protection forces are performing a wide variety of security missions. Equipment is being delivered. Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being reestablished."

in 2004, yes 2004.

Despite the optimism and progress cited 3 years ago, he still wants over 160,000 U.S. troops to remain in Iraq until March 2008, followed by a withdrawal of 30,000 troops (the number of surge troops) by next summer. When will it end?

8,000,000,000 tax dollars and 64 U.S. soldiers killed every month.
No thanks. I don't want my tax dollars spent this way.

It's clear that terrorism (like crime) will be with us for a while. The best way to contain terrorism is through pro-active intelligence gathering, diligent police work, and strengthening alliances, NOT through wars of attrition. Wars of attrition on distant shores will only serve to destroy our great civilization. Is this what we want for our children?

An Early Prediction

Introduction
It is impossible to say with any certainty what WILL happen in the upcoming presidential campaign. Nonetheless, I would like to offer an idea as to what MIGHT happen followed by my thoughts on the process and my current preferences.

Early signs indicate this election cycle might very well be unprecedented in many respects. First, the amount of money being raised each quarter continues to be record-setting. Second, the number of debates and candidates on each side are quite high. Third, it's been 80 years since there was no incumbent president or vice president running for nomination. Finally, the threat of terrorism in the nation and world will continue to be a factor. In the end, however, I believe the deciding factors will be the state of the economy (for all Americans) and the War in Iraq, NOT national security or terrorism.

Before I address the 2008 presidential election in detail, I would like to mention a few caveats that might significantly influence the process. First, another major terrorist attack on United States soil will more than likely increase the support of Republican candidates, especially McCain and Giuliani. Of course, all of this depends on when and how such an event takes place. Another word of caution involves the possibility of a significant third party candidate. Nader has already mentioned the possibility of running again, and Bloomberg, despite saying he would not run, recently changed his party's affiliation to independent, and he continues to voice his opinions about issues facing presidential candidates. And there is also the possibility that the evangelical base of the Republican party might support a third party candidate or simply refuse to support the party's nomination for any number of reasons. Nonetheless, I don't see such a third party candidate getting much of the vote, perhaps 3-5% at the most. To a large extent, the battle lines have been drawn by the two major political parties since the 2000 election, and most voters are likely to fall along party lines with swing voters keeping the 2008 election within 3-5% points. Sound likes an interesting presidential election to me.

The Democrats
I will start with the Democrats since their field appears to be easier to prognosticate. Currently, Hillary Clinton is in a strong position to win the nomination for a variety of reasons. Name recognition and image are huge in politics, and Clinton is doing a good job of controlling both to her advantage. In the polls, Clinton has a national average lead of 17 points, and she is leading in most states including a 2 point lead in Iowa and 15 point lead in New Hampshire. A lot could happen between now and January 2008, but Clinton is a professional politician with a huge political machine, and I doubt she will be derailed.

Barack Obama and John Edwards appear to be the only candidates with a realistic chance of overtaking Clinton for the Democratic nomination. To a large extent, Obama is running as the candidate of change and Edwards is running as the anti-Clinton candidate. Edwards national poll average is 10.3 while Clinton's national average is 38.3. In fact, Al Gore (an undeclared candidate) is garnering more support than Edwards in some polls. In the Democratic Party, at least, it is clear that being pro-Clinton is more popular than being anti-Clinton. Again, I don't think much will happen between now and January 2008 to change this view.

If anyone can dethrone Clinton it will most likely be Obama who has gained enough support, both financial and human, to significantly challenge her for the nomination. Obama's national poll average is 21%, but even if he loses a couple of early states in the primaries and caucuses he will have enough money to compete on February 5, 2008 (Super Tuesday/National Primary) and beyond. Even so, I seriously doubt Obama will be able to overcome the well-oiled political machine of Clinton.

The Republicans
The Republican nomination, on the other hand, appears to be much more complicated. Early signs indicated that the nomination was going to Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's national poll average has only dropped 4 points since he entered the presidential race in February 2007, but recent polls indicate that an increasing number of Republicans are unsure of who they would vote for in their party (currently 23%, up from 10% in March 2007). In the same poll, Giuliani received 29% (down from 36% in March 2007). Additionally, Fred Thompson has been polling in second place ahead of John McCain and Mitt Romney without officially being in the race. To complicate matters even more, Romney is ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls with 17- and 11-point leads respectively.

And we haven't even mentioned the significance of the evangelical base of the Republican Party. To my knowledge, no post-World War II Republican (including Nixon) has won the presidency without the support of the evangelical base, and I don't see 2008 being much different in this respect.

So how might the evangelical base influence the prospects of the Republican candidates?:
On immigration, abortion, and gay rights, Giuliani is more like independents and Democrats. According to Rasmussen Reports, 51% of Americans polled consider him a moderate or liberal. I wish Giuliani well, but I just don't see the evangelical base (a significant number) voting for him in the primaries or national election. Therefore, I don't think Giuliani gets the nomination. Giuliani's national poll average (28%) is already down 10 points from March 2007, when he peaked at 38%. He's also down 4 points from his initial national poll average of 32% in February 2007, and I think he will continue to fade as more and more evangelicals become familiar with his platform and his personal life. One of Giuliani's self-proclaimed strengths is national security, and I'm sure it's an important issue to many evangelicals. However, I cannot imagine national security trumping immigration, abortion, or gay rights.

McCain angered many evangelicals in the 2000 presidential campaign when he openly criticized conservative Christian leaders as being "agents of intolerance." McCain has since apologized and even sought the support of those he criticized. This move alone should be enough to convince you that the support of the evangelical base is a significant component of the Republican nomination. McCain's support has dropped among independents, in part, due to his ongoing support of the War in Iraq, and his support among Republicans has dropped to an extent because of his so-called "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. McCain will probably continue to fade before surging at some point in the election, only to drop out in the end.

Before moving on to other Republicans, it is important to remember the caveat I proposed earlier in this essay. That is, Giuliani and McCain gain support, enough to get the nomination, if the US is attacked again. However, I think the majority of support that pushes Giuliani or McCain ahead will come from Reagan Democrats, undecided independents, and secular Republicans, NOT evangelicals. Sure, some evangelicals might "hold their noses" while they pull the lever for Giuliani or McCain, but I suspect many evangelicals will simply stay home on election day 2008 if they don't like the candidates. Their silent protest will not be aimed at anyone in particular. Instead, I believe the protest will have more to do with the unusual amount of stench originating from Washington DC, both Republican and Democratic (Larry Craig, David Vitter, William Jefferson, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, Alberto Gonzales, Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff).

That leaves us with Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and a dark horse named Mike Huckabee. Nominating Romney (at age 60, looks younger) or Huckabee (age 52) would be better for the future and image of the Republican Party (Thompson is 65). But Romney's Mormonism might not play well with the evangelical base among others. According to a recent Pew Research poll, 25% of Americans would be less likely to support a candidate for president who is Mormon. Mormons are in third place only behind Muslims (45%) and Atheists (61%). In the same poll, Americans would only be 6% less likely to vote for a black candidate for president. One's religion appears to be more important than one's skin color. Another problem for Romney is his change of opinion with regard to abortion. Actually, I think this is less of an issue than his religion. Despite his change of mind, at least Romney has ended up on the side that evangelicals favor; that is "pro-life".

An ideal candidate for the evangelicals is Huckabee. He is similar enough to all the other Republican candidates with three significant distinctions: he's always been "pro-life," he doesn't believe in evolution, and he's a Baptist preacher. Nonetheless, Huckabee remains a relative unknown among the Republican pack. But there are signs that this is changing. Huckabee's national poll average is up to nearly 4%, and he finished second in the Ames, Iowa Republican Straw Poll (Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson did not compete). Huckabee's national average was nearly dead at 0-1% as late as May 2007. Huckabee is starting to show signs of life, but he must make more significant gains in the polls between now and January 2008 or he will continue to maintain his lower-tier/possible vice-president status.

So how does Thompson figure in to the equation? Thompson has been criticized for waiting to officially enter the race (He officially announced on September 5, 2007). I don't blame him for waiting until after Labor Day to announce, but if he did in fact manipulate the political system to his advantage then he should be held accountable. As for entering the race late, couldn't it be that the others entered too soon (as early as January 2007)? It sounds like Thompson has a 6-month strategy, one which allows him to enter the race in September 2007, and know whether or not he is the nominee by the end of February 2008. In this day and age, that is more than enough time for the media and the public to get to know a candidate.

But one issue that may upset the evangelical base are allegations that Thompson lobbied for a pro-abortion rights group in the early 1990s. So far, it seems as though Thompson has been able to deflect this, and I suspect he's folksy enough to continue to do so throughout the campaign. Compared to Giuliani and Romney, I believe Thompson will be more effective at explaining any concerns regarding abortion (or any issue). One clear advantage for Thompson is that he appears to be more skillful and comfortable at speaking with the "common" person. Personally, I do not think this characteristic should be a prerequisite for the presidency, but it's an important factor for many people and therefore considered an advantage. (This is also an advantage for Huckabee).

And I just don't believe pundits and others who say Romney has the most to lose from Thompson entering the race. During Thompson's "exploratory period," both Thompson and Romney's national poll averages went up while Giuliani's and McCain's went down. It appears as though Giuliani and McCain have the most to lose from a Thompson campaign. And despite the decreased likelihood that Americans will vote for someone who is Mormon, Romney's personal life is more in line with what evangelicals and Catholics usually expect from their candidates. Even so, I don't believe Romney can garner enough support to win the nomination.

What's interesting is Jeb Bush's absence from the 2008 presidential election. I believe Jeb has seriously considered running, but he realizes the chances for another Bush aren't so good this election cycle. However, I suppose we will hear from Jeb or another Bush in 2012 and beyond.

Final Analysis
The Democrats are probably even more likely than 2004 to nominate a candidate they believe is the most electable. Eights years of Bush II has perhaps strengthened Clinton's chances, while the Republican Party struggles to find someone like Ronald Reagan. I say Clinton's chances are strengthened because the Democrats are also being nostalgic. The Democrats are looking for someone like Bill Clinton, the last (elected) two-term Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45). So I think Hillary Clinton gets the nomination barring any major scandals (like Lewinsky) or surprises (like Gore entering the race).

As for Clinton's running mate, I suspect it will be a white male. Clinton is relatively progressive, but she's certainly not a dumb politician. Choosing a minority for VP (Richardson, Obama, or another female) would certainly be progressive and bold, but not so politically smart. Regardless of Clinton's popularity, a ticket with two minorities would be a hard sale in many places. I imagine Clinton has already figured this out. I also imagine Clinton thinks she needs to appear strong (even hawkish) when it comes to national security. Therefore, I suppose Clinton will choose a white male with some military background. Who might that be? My best guess would be Wesley Clark. Another guess might be Jim Webb.

The Republicans, on the other hand, will continue to struggle with the legacy of Reagan. I believe the Republican nomination will ultimately be a dogfight between Thompson and Romney until February 5th (Super Tuesday). Once the smoke clears, I think Thompson will edge out Romney by the end of February. One significant reason: I just don't see the evangelical base supporting a Mormon. I don't think this is fair, but I do think this is how it will play out.

And I suspect Thompson will select someone he's comfortable with for vice-president and not someone who makes more political sense. Therefore, I believe Thompson will choose someone from the South instead of a more strategic pick. Who might that be? Mike Huckabee, Mark Sanford or Newt Gingrich. If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, choosing Huckabee might serve to counter the influence of Clinton in Arkansas. Another possible VP candidate is Mark Sanford, current governor of South Carolina. He's a Washington "outsider" with a fresh, young face (age 47) and no apparent baggage. Gingrich, on the other hand, seems like more of a gamble. I'm not sure what kind of relationship Thompson has with Gingrich, but it appears like Gingrich might have too much baggage to be an effective VP candidate. And I've also heard rumors on the Internet of Thompson selecting Condoleezza Rice as VP. This would be very progressive and bold, but I seriously doubt it will happen. Even more unlikely is Jeb Bush as VP.

So here's my early prediction:
Democrats: Clinton (VP = Clark or Webb)
Republicans: Thompson (VP = Huckabee or Sanford)

Research the Candidates on the Internet:
As for the other candidates on both sides (Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, Gravel, Brownback, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo), I will discuss them in a section below entitled My Current Preferences. And please take time to visit and research all of the candidates at their official websites:

Republicans:
Sam Brownback
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson

Democrats:
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Barack Obama
Bill Richardson

Independents:
Blake Ashby of Missouri
Don Cordell of California
Joe Schriner of Ohio
Jon A Greenspon of California
Brad Lord-Leutwyler of Nevada
Charles T. Maxham of New Jersey
James H. Mccall of Ohio
David J. Masters of North Carolina
Donald K. Allen of Ohio
Steve Adams of Kentucky
David Koch of Utah
John Taylor Bowles of South Carolina
Bob W. Hargis of Oklahoma
Thomas J. Kozee Jr. of Ohio

Others:
Potential Green Party Candidates
Libertarian Party
Constitution Party

My Thoughts on the Political Process:
It is becoming more evident that presidential elections in the United States are becoming more dependent on the power of money and less dependent on the power of the individual voter. Why must one have to raise MILLIONS of dollars in order to make a serious run for president? It sounds like we need serious campaign finance reform, and I praise John McCain, Russ Feingold, and even Fred Thompson (and others) for realizing that.

And the primaries and caucuses are also starting to get out of hand with many states trying to move ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire. I don't blame them. There should be a federal system in place that rotates a region of states every four years, so each region of states gets to go first at some point. Why should other states sit around while Iowa and New Hampshire always enjoy the spotlight and influence that comes along with being first?

There should also be a recycled paper trail of every vote placed in every state and every district. Some states are already doing this, but all of them should be required to do so. In addition to voting by mail, there should be a mandatory period of one weekend in which all polls are opening for voting. We might also want to think about compulsory voting. There are currently 32 countries with compulsory voting, including Australia where voter turnout averages 95%.

My Current Preferences:
I am still researching all the presidential candidates, and I am unlikely to make a decision until the spring of 2008. As an independent, I'm unlikely to be able to vote in the primaries in my state. However, if I were able to vote in the primaries, I would currently CONSIDER the following:
Giuliani for the Republicans
Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Joe Biden for the Democrats
Ralph Nader for the Green Party
Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the other third party candidates to make a consideration at this time.

Ideally, I'd prefer a "change" candidate outside of the two-party system with a respectable chance of winning or seriously challenging the Democrats or Republicans. Currently, no one seems to fit that ideal, not even Nader. Therefore, I have started to look at other options. Giuliani is somewhat appealing because he appears to be a moderate politician outside the Capital Beltway, but he is not adequately addressing the issues most important to me. Edwards has already had a shot at the White House and couldn't even carry his home state of North Carolina in 2004. Nonetheless, Edwards is humble enough to admit his mistakes, and he seems to have gained an unusual spark along the way that deserves a second look. Biden seems like one of the most reasonable, intelligent candidates, but he has a tendency to be abrasive at times. For the time being, I will have to say that Obama is my current preference for a variety of reasons: he represents the most reasonable form of change (albeit within the Democratic party), he seems genuinely interested in bipartisanship and diplomacy, he is trying hard to stay above the fray of traditional political bickering, and he is addressing issues that concern me (see list below). Even so, it is still too early to make a decision, and I have not researched third party candidates enough.

Issues that are most important to me:
1. Health care reform
2. War in Iraq (ending it, that is; 8 billion $ and 64 soldiers a month)
3. Economy (fair trade and jobs)
4. Energy conservation and reform
5. National security
6. Campaign finance reform

Brownback, Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo on the Republican side seem to be too divisive and radical for the current state of the nation. The same goes for Kucinich and Gravel on the Democratic side. The nation now needs a "healer", and I doubt they would be up for the task. McCain is for more war, and I'm not. But I am still uncertain about Huckabee, Thompson, and Giuliani. The same uncertainty goes for Richardson, Dodd, and Clinton on the Democratic side.

Clinton is perhaps the Democrats best chance of winning the presidency, and the Democrats are certainly addressing more of the issues I'm most concerned about this election cycle. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to embrace her candidacy as something the country needs at this moment. She seems too much like a professional politician who makes every effort to stay on script with the latest talking points. Haven't we had enough of this? Clinton has not admitted her mistake in voting to authorize the War in Iraq, yet she seems more than willing to blame Bush for waging war she helped approve. And I have a strange feeling she will not bring the troops home from Iraq anytime soon if she is elected president. To get a better idea of why I'm leery of Clinton, please read this article from The Nation.

Some Democrats believe nominating Clinton will only serve to solidify the Republicans and others against the Democrats. Other Democrats believe Clinton's unfavorable ratings are too high to get elected. I agree with these statements to a certain extent. Clinton is certainly unpopular among the vast majority of Republicans. And Clinton's unfavorable ratings are high (39%) but not higher than Bush's (46%) before he was re-elected in 2004 (Pew Research poll). Despite these disadvantages, Clinton still has an average lead over every Republican candidate in head-to-head match-ups. Granted, it's still too soon to predict how her negatives would play out in the general election. Some say her negatives have already played themselves out, but I tend to disagree.

Like I said before, I believe the nation needs someone who will help depolarize the ugly divide between the right and left, and I just don't think she's the person for such a job. I believe the country deserves more than Bushes and Clintons. The nation is ripe for change and Hillary represents more of the same stale fruit Washington DC has to offer.

Currently, I believe Obama and Edwards offer the best medicine for America, and I wish them well. However, the odds are in Clinton's favor, and if she is humble enough to admit mistakes and offer the vice-presidency to Obama and Edwards, I will consider her candidacy. Even then, it would be a difficult pill for me to swallow, and there's no guarantee of recovery. Stay tuned...

Be Afraid...But Don't Worry

On July 11, 2007, Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff warned that the United States faces an increased risk of terrorist attacks. He later described his concerns about future attacks as "a gut feeling." I'm sure, at least I hope, it was based on more than intuition. Mr. Chertoff is certainly privy to intelligence that could cause the stomach to feel a bit uneasy. "We could easily be attacked," Mr. Chertoff stated. "The intent to attack us remains as strong as it was on September 10, 2001." Nonetheless, he failed to give any specifics as to what type of attack might be in the works this summer or fall.

Unfortunately, the last time we had reports like "Al-Qaida Plots New Attacks on US Soil," four airplanes were hijacked and thousands of people died. On August 6, 2001, President Bush received a daily briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." The report stated that a Bin Laden "cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youths for attacks." In addition, signs indicated that Bin Laden and Al-Qaida might be planning to hijack US aircraft. And the report came to an end with the following: "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of buildings in New York." The rest is history.

And on July 17, 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reported that the US faces a "heightened threat environment." The following are excerpts of an article by the Associated Press as printed in the Chicago Tribune:

• "The findings focused most heavily on Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, which was judged to remain the most serious threat to the United States."
• "In addition, analysts stressed the importance of al-Qaida's increasingly comfortable hideout in Pakistan that has resulted from a hands-off accord between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and tribal leaders along the Afghan border."

The NIE report included three potential terror threats to the US:

1. Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran.
2. The number of homegrown extremists in the U.S. and its Western allies is growing, fueled by Internet web sites and anti-American rhetoric.
3. So-called "single issue" terrorist groups probably will attack here on a smaller scale. They include white supremacists, anarchists and animal rights groups, such as Animal Liberation Front.

So where does this leave us? Well, there are two ways of viewing this latest information:

1. It's just one of many false reports or reports that will not materialize
2. It's the real thing

There is no way of knowing for certain, and I suspect the government will have to live with that reality. If something does happen the government can claim, "there was no way of knowing for sure." And if nothing happens, they can say, "we were just doing our jobs." I'm not blaming our government for this. It's just an inconvenient truth. For this reason, I suspect we hear contradictory generalizations like "Be Afraid...But Don't Worry."

So what are we to make of all this? It's not so much knowing with certainty what will happen (an impossibility) as it is our willingness to allow ourselves to get diverted or distracted from the most important task at hand: containing terrorism. The important question here is: Who is diverting our attention and why are they doing so? I believe the Neoconservatives and their Project for the New American Century are the source of the problem.

First, let me preface the following by saying that I do not believe the Neocons or the Bush Administration planned 9/11 or allowed it to happen, but I do believe they have used their influence and power to take advantage of 9/11 at the expense of US soldiers, the American people, and Iraqis. Having said that, I do believe government conspiracies exist. If one doesn't believe in such conspiracies, then one might argue that Watergate or Iran-Contra never happened.

So what do the Neocons represent? The following are excerpts from the Neocons' Statement of Principles:

• As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

• Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

1. We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
2. We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
3. We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
4. We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others, signed and helped write the Statement of Principles and ideals set forth by the Neocons and their Project for the New American Century. So what are the responsibilities the Neocons are so worried about? Those responsibilities are "defense/national security, global leadership and spreading democracy." For more information, please visit the Neocons' website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/. By the way, the Project for a New American Century is an American neoconservative think tank that seeks to exert influence on United States foreign policy and national security.

The best way to understand the Neocons is to actually read their strategies. On November 16, 1998, nearly three years before 9/11, The Weekly Standard (a neoconservative magazine) wrote an editorial entitled "How to Attack Iraq". Other articles concerning this matter can be found here. It's safe to say the Neocons were convinced that Iraq had WMDs. Sure, others also believed this, but to say that everyone believed Iraq had WMDs is categorically wrong. Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector, was the most outspoken critic. Tyler Drumheller, a former top CIA official, was also skeptical. And many experts and former government officials expressed their concerns in the documentary Uncovered: The War on Iraq.

Despite the skepticism concerning Iraq and WMDs, the Neocons continued to beat the drums of war. Then 9/11 happened and all signs pointed to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. But almost immediately, the Neocons were focusing their attention on Iraq and its alleged connection to 9/11. Gary Schmitt of The Weekly Standard wrote an article titled "Why Iraq?"on October 19, 2001, just 5 weeks after 9/11. In the article, Mr. Schmitt outlined exactly why the US should invade Iraq. The article is even posted on the Necons' website.

On October 7, 2001, the United States military invaded Afghanistan. I believe the war in Afghanistan was a justifiable response to 9/11, and it put the United States in a great position to contain and monitor Iran and Pakistan. Unfortunately, we have since diverted our attention to the tasks of invading and occupying Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. As a result, Osama Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda members are still at large, and they have regrouped along the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Again let me reiterate that I do not believe there was a conspiracy on the part of the Neocons to plan or let 9/11 happen. But I do believe there was a conspiracy to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power, and 9/11 provided that opportunity. Even if Iraq had WMDs, that does not mean Hussein conspired with the terrorists of 9/11. In fact, all evidence suggest Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And if you believe they did, then you do believe in conspiracies.

What, if anything, does all of this mean?
Will a new terrorist attack on US soil convince the Neocons to take advantage of the opportunity? And if they did, what would they do? Would Dick Cheney decide to run for President? Doubtful. Would the Neocons support a Republican candidate that would continue to carry on the ideals of The Project for the New American Century? They already are. Would the Republican Party and the Bush Administration use scare tactics? They already are. Would Congress and the Democrats give President Bush the authority to wage more war? Probably. Would US troops stay in Iraq indefinitely? They already are.

Mr. Chertoff and the National Intelligence Estimate are not the only ones who think an attack is imminent. Rick Santorum, former Republican Senator of Pennsylvania said the following on July 10, 2007:

• "Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view."

Well, I have a "gut feeling," too. My "gut feeling" is that something will happen in Iraq or Iran later this year that compels the US to respond in the form of aerial attacks on strategic targets in Iran. This of course, opens the floodgates in Iraq leading to a full-scale regional war (in full swing by spring 2008).

Another scenario is that the US is attacked again and the Republicans start to play the fear card as the presidential campaign picks up (see video below). Then...

As a loyal Bushie (on the Iraq war), McCain is endorsed by the White House as the person best suited to carry on the war. With little or no foreign policy or war time experience, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards lose ground as the American public grows more fearful. McCain selects Guiliani as his VP and the memories of 9/11 inspire millions to re-elect a Republican to the White House. God save us!?!?

Let's hope Mr. Chertoff, Mr. Santorum, and I are incorrect.

Postscript: I realize future terrorist attacks in the United States are probably inevitable, but I do not believe fighting wars of attrition on distant shores is the way to win the "War on Terror." Isn't war itself terrifying? And it's not about winning or losing, it's about containing and neutralizing. Our best defense is proactive intelligence, strong multi-national alliances, strategic strikes when necessary, and some luck (like the British had in London). Over-extending our armies and fighting unpopular wars only serve to weaken our great civilization.

Should Jefferson and Vitter Resign?

The scandal surrounding Democratic Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana is really a no brainer unless he is in fact innocent. Only he would know for sure. But even then, I'm sure there are ethical issues to be addressed. Mr. Jefferson was indicted on June 4, 2007 on 16 counts for charges including racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire-fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. Mr. Jefferson pleaded not guilty to the charges on June 8, 2007. I still believe in "innocent until proven guilty," but the evidence sure doesn't look good for Mr. Jefferson.

The scandal involving Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana is a bit more complicated. Mr. Vitter offered a public apology on July 9, 2007, for events involving solicitation of an illegal escort service. Phone records show that Mr. Vitter's number was called five times at his request from October 1999 to February 2001. And recent accusations by a New Orleans brothel allege that Mr. Vitter was a paying customer in the 1990s. Apparently, the statutes of limitations have expired, so it is unlikely that Mr. Vitter will face any criminal charges such as adultery or soliciting prostitutes. If that were the end of the story, I could easily say that Mr. Vitter should remain in office. However, some of Mr. Vitter's past statements bring into question the legitimacy of his integrity.

People make mistakes, and it's okay to make mistakes. It's also okay to make mistakes, learn from them, and then help others from making such errors. It's even okay to claim family values and make mistakes. But one should be careful about condemning others for their mistakes. In 1998, at the height of the Lewinsky Scandal, Mr. Vitter told the Atlanta Journal Constitution that extramarital affairs were grounds for resignation. If an extramarital affair is grounds for resignation, isn't soliciting prostitutes also grounds for resignation? If you are going to preach, be careful what you say.

Mr. Vitter has also been a diligent opponent of same-sex marriage. While running for US Senator of Louisiana in 2004, Mr. Vitter released the following statement on protecting the sanctity of marriage: "This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. Senators won't do anything about it. We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts's values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage."

Well, I'm sorry to hear that Mr. Vitter and his belief in the sanctity of marriage are the victims of gays and lesbians seeking the opportunity to enjoy something Mr. Vitter values so much. As a Christian, Mr. Vitter should know that the Bible has a lot more to say about adultery than homosexuality. Mr. Vitter should also know that the Bible says the punishment for both adultery and homosexuality is death. Fortunately, Jesus gave us a new way of thinking and loving.

Having said that, it would not anger or even disappoint me if Mr. Vitter decided to remain in office. If I were in a position to do so, I would forgive him. Much the way Jesus came to the defense of the prostitute who was about to be stoned to death. Apparently, Mr. Vitter's wife has decided to forgive him as well. Mrs. Vitter once implied that she would cut off her husband's penis if he cheated on her. Mrs. Vitter made this comment in response to a question regarding the infidelity of Bob Livingston, a former congressman from Louisiana who resigned from office in May 1999.

For the record, I will state that I believe former President Clinton should have resigned and served time. Not because of his adultery, but because he lied under oath and obstructed justice. If President Clinton had admitted his guilt from the beginning, or at the very least when he was under oath, I would have been content with him staying in office.

And Mr. Scooter Libby also lied under oath and obstructed justice. To Mr. Libby's credit, he did resign. However, President Bush commuted Mr. Libby's 30-month sentence because he thought it was too harsh. As a result, Mr. Libby did not go to jail. If the sentence was too harsh, why didn't President Bush just reduce the sentence to 1 year or 6 months?

And Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley, former Republican congressmen, did the right thing when they resigned. Mr. Cunningham is currently serving 8 years in prison for a number of convictions, and Mark Foley received counseling after sending suggestive emails and sexually explicit instant messages to teenagers.

So should Jefferson and Vitter resign? Yes for Jefferson. No for Vitter. I wrote this post to emphasize the fact that we all make mistakes. It doesn't matter if you are Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc. All too often, Democrats try to separate individual responsibility from a person's actions, and Republicans try to legislate morality they don't always live up to. Somewhere between the ideals of the Democrats and the Republicans is a middle path. Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all talk about a middle way. The Bible says, "Do not swerve to the right or left; Do not turn aside to the left or to the right." Jesus also talked extensively about love, forgiveness and the importance of not passing judgment on others. Sure, there must be consequences, but there is nothing anyone could do to keep me from loving or forgiving him or her, not even my enemies.

If you get a chance, please read God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get It by Jim Wallis.

Happy Anniversary!!!!

Happy Anniversary Nacky!!!! I love you, and I miss you very much. This song reminds me of you, and it helps me stay close while we are apart.

Lebron James - Be

The NBA is back. If you have given up on the NBA, it's time to take another look. As much as I admire Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs, I must say that I am cheering for the Cavs and LeBron James. Art in Motion. Beautiful, simply beautiful...

Farewell to Jerry Falwell

Did Jerry Falwell emulate Jesus Christ?

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist."

"These perverted homosexuals...absolutely hate everything that you and I and most decent, God-fearing citizens stand for...Make no mistake. These deviants seek no less than total control and influence in society, politics, our schools, and in our exercise of free speech and religious freedom...If we do not act now, homosexuals will own America!"

"I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians...the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped [the September 11 attacks] happen.'"

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals."

Perhaps Mr. Falwell's heart problems were the wrath of a just God against false prophets.

Dixie Chicks

On March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd's Bush Empire theatre in London, England, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks said the following: "Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." The crowd erupted in support. Ten days later, the United States military started dropping bombs on Iraq in the form of "shock and awe".

Little did the Dixie Chicks realize that the comments of Ms. Maines would set off another war. This war, however, would be waged in the U.S. by fair-weather fans, country/western radio stations, and other forms of mass media. Ms. Maines and the Dixie Chicks may have dropped the first bomb, but their new-found enemies would introduce them to a new form of "shock and awe".

The bombardment of the Dixie Chicks was relentless. Country/western radio stations across the nation systematically boycotted the Chicks' music at the request of many disgruntled fans. And what's more, many radio stations and other organizations held parties in which angry fans could burn or trash concert tickets, CDs, and Chicks' memorabilia. By the time the Chicks returned to the U.S. for the stateside portion of their tour, their remaining concerts were in jeopardy of being canceled or severely compromised. To add insult to injury, the American Red Cross refused a one million dollar donation from the Chicks.

In an attempt to lessen some of the "shock and awe", the Dixie Chicks, and Ms. Maines in particular, apologized to President Bush with the following statement: "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American" (emphasis added). However, the Chicks, to date, have refused to apologize to their former fans, radio stations, and the country/western establishment who turned their back on the Chicks.

Despite the disgruntled fans, boycotts, and death threats, the Chicks were able to finish their American tour to a number of sold-out crowds. However, the "shock and awe" and the resulting tension continued to mount. "On May 22, 2003, at the Academy of Country Music (ACM) awards ceremony in Las Vegas, there were boos when the group's nomination for Entertainer of the Year award was announced. However, the broadcast's host, Vince Gill, reminded the audience that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech. The Academy gave the award to Toby Keith, an outspoken critic of the group" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_chicks#Political_controversy).

The damage was done, and the Chicks returned to the relative safety of their homes following the 2003 tour. The group had lost many fans, many country/western radio stations, the support of the country music industry, and perhaps an entire music genre. A fragile truce settled in bringing a halt to the war against the Dixie Chicks. In Iraq, war was still being waged and by the end of 2003, 486 U.S. soldiers were dead and 2,408 wounded.

The Chicks took a two-year break in order to rest and recuperate. During the vacation, one of the Chicks, Emily Robison, gave birth to beautiful twin girls. The time off also gave birth to a renewed spirit and sense of direction. The group decided to turn their back on the country music industry but not their love of country music. The Chicks hired Rick Rubin, an eclectic music producer, and temporarily moved to Los Angeles during 2005. What emerged from this unusual collaboration was a beautiful testament to the wonder of life an it's precious treasures. Their creation, Taking the Long Way, offers a variety of thought-provoking songs in a manner that is respectful, powerful, and ultimately true to themselves as artists. The album speaks truth to power and freedom.

In 2006, "Taking the Long Way debuted at number one on both the U.S. pop albums chart and the U.S. country albums chart, selling 526,000 copies in the first week (the year's second-best total for any country act) and making it a gold record within its first week." Taking the Long Way was the ninth best-selling album of 2006 in the U.S., and it won the 2007 Grammy for Best Album, Best Record, Best Song (Not Ready to Make Nice), and Best Country Album. And I wish the Chicks the best with their nominations for Video and Group Video of the Year on Country Music Television (CMT) on April 16, 2007.

The album includes a lullaby and songs about grandparents and the tragic loss of memory, the loss of loved ones, friends, hope, peace, and the importance of standing up for what you believe in. The album would not have been complete without Not Ready to Make Nice which reminds the public that the reactions to Ms. Maines' 2003 comment were not appropriate, and therefore, difficult to forget and/or forgive.

Here are the lyrics from Not Ready to Make Nice (Words and Music by Emily Robinson, Martie Maguire, Natalie Maines, Dan Wilson):
Forgive, sounds good. Forget, I'm not sure I could. They say time heals everything. But I'm still waiting. I'm through with doubt. There's nothing left for me to figure out. I've paid a price. And I'll keep paying. I'm not ready to make nice. I'm not ready to back down. I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time to go round and round and round. It's too late to make it right. I probably wouldn't if I could. Cause I'm mad as hell. Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should. I know you said can't you just get over it. It turned my whole world around and I kind of like it. I made my bed and I sleep like a baby. With no regrets and I don't mind sayin' it's a sad sad story when a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger. And how in the world can the words that I said send somebody so over the edge that they'd write me a letter sayin' that I better shut up and sing or my life will be over. I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time to go round and round and round. It's too late to make it right. I probably wouldn't if I could. Cause I'm mad as hell. Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should. I'm not ready to make nice. I'm not ready to make nice. I'm not ready to back down. I'm still mad as hell and I don't have time to go round and round and round. It's too late to make it right. I probably wouldn't if I could. Cause I'm mad as hell. Can't bring myself to do what it is you think I should. Forgive sounds good. Forget I'm not sure I could. They say times heals everything. But I'm still waiting. (emphasis added)

Speaking of Shut Up and Sing, the Chicks released a film by the same name in February 2007, documenting their "controversial" statement, the inappropriate reactions, and the making of their new album, Taking the Long Way. The documentary closes with the Chicks "returning to the scene of the crime" at Shepherd's Bush Empire theatre in London, England in 2006. Natalie Maines tells the crowd that people have asked her what she planned to say in response to the infamous comment she made three years earlier. Ms. Maines boldly stated, "we’re still ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." Once again, the crowd erupted in support. And in Iraq, the bombs are still dropping with 3,169 U.S. soldiers dead, 23,417 wounded and no end in sight.

Needless to say, the Dixie Chicks have a special place in my heart. Their courage is inspiring, and I wish them the best in the future. "Traitors, Dixie Sluts, Saddam's Angels, Hippies, Opinionated?"
I love you Dixie Chicks!!!

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." Thomas Jefferson.

WAR IS OVER! If you want it

Another 2 U.S. soldiers died today, and another 15 were wounded. Support our troops by bringing them home. I'm not for an immediate withdrawal, but I am for deadlines. All U.S. soldiers should be home by December 2008. Critics of withdrawal deadlines argue that such talk only emboldens the enemies. Might deadlines also encourage the Iraqi government to step up? Just something for the withdrawal critics to think about. The world doesn't function properly without deadlines.

Controlling terrorism is a matter of law enforcement, not military power. The solution to a stable Iraq is not more war, it's more diplomacy. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has created a difficult world for the Iraqi government and its neighbors to negotiate. Granted, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, but can supporters of the war really say Iraq is better off today with hundreds of Iraqis dying every day and thousands fleeing every month? Since when did America become the democracy police? Last time I checked Saudi Arabia was a monarchy and 19 of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis. So, when are we going to bring shock and awe and democracy to Saudi Arabia?

The withdrawal should take place as follows:
June 2007 reduce current levels to 125,000
December 2007 reduce levels to 100,000
March 2008 reduce levels to 75,000
June 2008 reduce levels to 50,000
September 2008 reduce levels to 25,000
December 2008 all troops home

At each stage of the withdrawal, the U.S. government should encourage and participate in diplomacy. This should include direct diplomatic relations with Iran. This is just one of many plans for ending U.S. involvement in Iraq. What's your plan?

Please watch short clip: How This Must End