From IMCT - February 27, 2005

Although it's kind of like watching hogs breed, with a sick fascination we can begin to follow the 2008 fight for the Republican nomination for President.

Already, the hopefuls are jockeying for position, even though the primaries are three years away. In order to win the nomination fight -- which is actually decided in the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and (if the race is tight enough) South Carolina -- you must lay the groundwork in those early states well ahead of time.

Among those making unofficial campaign trips to early states are Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain. One name that apparently won't be in the running in 2008 is Bush, as in Jeb, the Florida Governor who has said he won't run.

An early poll shows Giuliani leading among those creeps who vote Republican, edging McCain, with Bush third and Frist a distant fourth.

At one point, I worried about a Giuliani candidacy, because he's such a feel-good character for leading his city through the 9/11 tragedy. But after watching Campaign 2004, Giuliani might be just the ticket for Democrats to beat. Just like a so-called "Northeastern liberal" a la John Kerry couldn't get elected President, I just don't think it would be that easy for a Northeastern Republican to carry the GOP's Southern base, especially if the Dems countered with any kind of red state Southerner or Midwesterner.

When it got down to the nitty-gritty, I'm just not sure those morals voters (who did or did not exist, depending on who you listen to) would flock to the polls for Giuliani in the numbers they needed to in order to elect Bush.

Obviously, Romney is a long, long shot of this group, a Northeasterner with limited recognition. His only claim would be that he's a Republcian who managed to win in a Democratic state, but that would actually be a negative to the national GOP.

Frist has the regional appeal as a Southerner, but also has limited recognition. (I would say questionable business practices by the company his family owns, HCA Inc., would hurt him, but Bush proved that theory wrong.)

Gingrich could be a spoiler, and I hope to see him run. The national party would never let him win, because he doesn't comform to the neo-con philosophy (that's not in any way a compliment to him, but...) He could cause some division and draw off some of the core conservative votes, serving much the same role in the GOP primary as Howard Dean served in the 2004 Democratic primary, as an ideological alternative before the party machinery cranks out its anointed one during the primary season.

McCain is one that should worry Democrats. Luckily, he's too far to the center on key Republican issues to ever pass muster with that GOP machinery, but he could certainly hinder any Democratic efforts to recapture that middle-of-the-road red-blooded American that the Dems will have to figure out how to appeal to it they are to begin winning elections instead of sliding into an increasingly marginal role.   

From IMCT - February 22, 2005

This whole weak dollar thing isn't getting a lot of attention overall, but at some point it should become a concern in the U.S., even if you don't spend your days on the floor of the stock exchange.

Today came word that the South Korean central bank would "diversify" its currency holdings, and other countries are expected to follow suit. In this case, "diversify" is a fancy word for "dump the dollar."

I didn't get a lot out of my financial class in high school, but it makes sense to me that if banks don't want to hold our currency, they might shortly not want to hold out debt -- and we've got a lot to hold. At the very least, a weak dollar would seem to make our debts even larger.

Not to sound like Chicken Little, but that sky does seem to be getting a little closer to earth lately.  

From IMCT - February 22, 2005

OK, Bush made it clear today that we are not planning an attack on Iran. He then made it clear that we might be planning an attack on Iran.

Here's your fearless leader's quote:

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table," Bush said.

Are we all clear on that? (Here's the story.)

From IMCT - February 21, 2005

First, we invaded Afghanistan (not a bad idea). Then we invaded Iraq (a very bad idea), irking a good portion of the world (also not a good idea, no matter how much we think we can go it alone).

Now, we're threatening Iran (an invasion there could make Iraq look like the 1980s invasion of Grenada), and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is threatening to suspend oil exports to the U.S. if there is an assassination attempt on him (Chavez appears to be about the same level of buffoon as Bush).

Oh, and meanwhile, North Korea is becoming an increasing nuclear threat, but they don't have oil.

How long after the merciful end of the Bush presidency will it take the U.S. to repair the damage done in those eight years? Or will there even be a chance for repair?  

From IMCT - February 21, 2005

Here we go. Don't know how believable it is, but here's a report that claims Bush plans on bombing Iran come June, and that chickenhawks in the administration still believe such bombing would set in motion regime change. They're stupid, and it's endangering us all.

The same report claims that the administration manipulated the Iraq vote to lower the percentage gained by the Shia to less than 50 percent. Gee, manipulating an election -- they have no practice on that.  

From IMCT - January 20, 2005

Here's the kind of magazine us red-state Southerners like to read:

It's "Y'all," The Magazine of Southern People. Yes, that's Bush on the cover with Barney. Available at (where else?) Wal-Mart, right next to "Guns and Ammo" and "Armchair General."  

From IMCT - January 18, 2005

Unfortunately, I told you so.

The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, who was responsible for early stories on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, tells us how the White House is preparing to charge into Iran as its next battle in the war on terror.

Hersh's article details the administration's gutting of the CIA in order to make the military more able to operate in a clandestine manner, which is much more to the liking of Rumsfield, Cheney, et al.

What they are doing is conducting "reconassaince" missions into Iran in order to find nuclear-related targets for a planned bombing, which could happen as early as this summer.

Emboldened by his election victory -- which Bush thinks was an approving referendum on his handling of Iraq -- the President wants to fight more "pre-emptive" wars. Even today, he warned Iran for trying to obtain longer-range weapons -- might we be in the early stages of a run-up to an Iranian conflict, much like we were prior to Iraq?

Proving once again that you can't teach a dumb dog new tricks, those in the administration are convinced that an attack on Iran would embolden dissidents who would overthrow the hardline government. The Bushies just don't understand what us weak-kneed liberals seem to understand: they just don't like us, period. If they have the choice between a Muslin hardliner they don't like and an invading American force, they'll stick with the status quo. Did we learn anything from Iraq?

It shouldn't have to be said, but since us progressives are accused of loving terrorists, here it is: I have no love for those in charge of Iran, just like I had no love for Saddam Hussein.

When this war on terror first began in the days after 9/11, we were told it would be a long battle that would not always produce clear objectives and results. Even as they were saying that, those in power were ignoring their own words and going after tangible enemies. But who is more dangerous: those who have a country, or those who have no geographically identifiable target for retaliation (a la Osama bin Laden)? Which would you rather your neighbor have: an ill-tempered doberman pinscher in his yard surrounded by a 10-foot fence, or an ill-tempered doberman pinscher running free?

The war in Iraq is a quagmire with no identifiable end. A war in Iran could make that one look like our invasion of Haiti in the 1990s. If Iran has any nuclear capabilities, it will likely lob whatever it's got at Israel (since it certainly doesn't have the ability to reach us). From there, the dominoes could fall fast; Israel would launch an all-out war with Iran, one which we would no doubt fight alongside (or even for) them. Such an occurrence could cause other Islamic nations to rise up to fight against Israel (any Israeli-Iranian war would require Israel to at least use the air space of other Middle Eastern nations). But it gets worse. None other than Cold War foe Russia is a staunch Iranian defender, as the Russians are building a $1 billions nuclear reactor there -- an investment they might be willing to protect militarily.

What you've got there is a recipe for World War III.

Had we used this same theory of pre-emption with Cuba in the 1960s, instead of the chosen path of containment, would any of us be alive today to debate this?

That the Bushies would be doing this is really no surprise -- they've proven there is no end to their hubris/stupidity. But at some point, surely to goodness the American people will have had enough.

But will it be too late?

From IMCT - January 9, 2005

Talking about wasting government money -- conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the Department of Education in order to promote the Bush administration's "No Child Left Behind" policy.

Now, referring to Williams as a "journalist" is iffy at best, as any of the commentators with an obvious political slant -- be it right or left -- should not be taken all that seriously. But the fact that Williams was writing opinion pieces and appearing on CNN while getting paid to promote an idea is downright scandalous. Of course, many Republicans who promote their party line are indeed going to benefit their own bottom line, but this is too much.

However, a greater uproar should be made over the fact that the government is spending money to promote such things. It's a law -- why do you need to try to persuade people it's good? If it were just about getting out information, it would be one thing, but the use of a commentator -- who shares an opinion in the hopes of swaying others -- shows that that is truly not the bottom line.

What this is all about is trying to sway a block of voters (African-Americans, as Williams is black) who are extremely suspicious of any Bush policy. It's about personal political gain, pure and simple.

From IMCT - January 9, 2005

Newt Gingrich -- remember him?

Ol' Newt, to whom the Republicans owe their current control of government, is contemplating a Presidential run in 2008. That could be quite interesting.

Newt oversaw the 1994 Republican revolution with his Contract on America, and was the Speaker of the House from 1994-1998. In 1997, he was reprimanded by the Republican-controlled House (how quickly they forget/eat their own young) then in 1998 left Congress entirely despite winning re-election after the GOP had a poor showing in mid-term elections.

It's interesting that Newt was reprimanded and fined for much the same thing that Tom DeLay is going through -- but the GOP House members came close to changing the rules so DeLay could remain Majority leader.

While Newt should be a poster boy for the current administration, you don't hear him mentioned by the current neo-conservatives in power. For one thing, Newt was critical of the handling of the Iraq war -- but not of the starting of said war. He has also criticized other elements of Bush policies. However, he has many of the same conservative pet projects as the administration. Still, it feels like those now in charge have something against their role model -- was he the victim of a political fragging?

With all this, it would seem that Gingrich, despite his enormous name recognition, would be a bit of an outsider in a 2008 GOP primary. He just doesn't have that feel of the chosen one, like a Jeb Bush or Rudy Guliani. And that could be good.

A bloody primary for the Repugs could help the Dems, as theirs is liable to be a bit of a mess, also. It's hard to figure just who the Dems should hope to face in the general election (although I still feel a Northeastern conservative such as Guliani would be more beatable), but if John McCain, Gingrich, Jeb Bush and Guliani all toss in their hats, it could be a polarizing primary that exposes the differences inside the party.

Of course, if Karl Rove or a like protege gets control, the Republicans may line up as they are wont to do behind one candidate who is annointed by whoever controls such things. Still, the more names in the hat in 2008 (and you've got to figure there will be several willing), the merrier for the Dems.

From IMCT - January 2, 2005

A recent article in our local paper had the Daughters of the Confederacy extolling the virtues of their organization -- which is in no way racist, of course. They discussed how the Northeners had shaped history in regards to the Civil War, etc., all the usual lines used by such groups. They presented Confederate battle flags to African-American women who had ancestors who fought for the South, and invited the women to apply for membership. I'm sure they're rushing to do so.