NYTimes

Posted By: Nick

 
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is going to circulate a letter asking for a third party group to pay for a full page ad in the NYTimes to feature the McCain Op-Ed that was rejected.  Seems like a good enough plan to make sure McCain’s response to Obama gets printed, but it seems to me there is another issue here.

If McCarthy (with the blessing of the Republican leadership, as the article states) is asking directly for this to be done by a third party group, isn’t that illegal coordination between the party/McCain Campaign and a 527?  Campaign Finance law states that a campaign cannot soordinate in any way with a 527 group.  If anyone has more information about how this specific situation would work, let me know.  But it seems to me that it’s a violation if it happens.

Here’s the part that I think is a problem:

House GOP sources suggest a Republican leadership PAC may pay for the ad if no outside group steps forward to do so, although the cost would run into the tens of thousands of dollars.

If a leadership PAC (run by an elected Congress, or whatever) runs the ad, I think that is ok; I’m not positive, but I think it is.  But if it is an outside group, I’m pretty sure that’s a clear violation.

Posted By: Nick

 
Frank Rich used his column in the NYTimes today to slam John McCain… hard.  Focusing primarily on McCain’s lack of economic knowledge and experience, Rich essentially makes the case that our economy can’t afford a McCain Presidency.

“In a time of war,” Mr. McCain said last week, “the commander in chief doesn’t get a learning curve.” Fair enough, but he imparted this wisdom in a speech that was almost a year behind Mr. Obama in recognizing Afghanistan as the central front in the war against Al Qaeda. Given that it took the deadliest Taliban suicide bombing in Kabul since 9/11 to get Mr. McCain’s attention, you have to wonder if even General Custer’s learning curve was faster than his.

As detailed, and brutal, as his attacks on McCain are, I think I most enjoyed the two paragraphs devoted to McCain’s top economic surrogate, Carly Fiorina.

Ms. Fiorina, the ubiquitous new public face of McCain economic policy, adds nothing to the mix beyond her incessant display of corporate jargon, from “trend lines” to “start-ups.” Before she was fired at Hewlett-Packard, its stock had declined 50 percent during her five-plus years in charge. She missed earning projections — by 23 percent in one quarter — much as she now misrepresents both the Obama and McCain records. This month she said Mr. McCain wanted to require insurance plans to cover birth control medications along with Viagra, when in fact he had voted against it.

Ms. Fiorina received a $42 million payout (half in cash) from H.P., according to a shareholders’ subsequent lawsuit. With this inspiring résumé, she now aspires to be Mr. McCain’s running mate. So does the irrepressible Mitt Romney, who actually was a business whiz before serving as Massachusetts’s governor. Beltway wisdom has it that the addition of such a corporate star will remedy Mr. McCain’s fiscal flatulence.

This column is a powerful argument against John McCain.  Read the whole thing, and then give a copy to any friends that say they are going to vote for McCain.

Posted By: Nick

 
I often disagree with Thomas Friedman, but his column in Wednesday’s NYTimes is fantastic.  Using the Security Council vote on Zimbabwe as an example, he points out that a world with a weaker America may not be the place that many countries think it will be.

Polls tell us how China is now more popular in Asia than America and how few Europeans say they identify with the United States.  I am sure there is truth to these polls….  But America is not and never has been just about those things, which is why I also find some of these poll results self-indulgent, knee-jerk and borderline silly. Friday’s vote at the U.N. on Zimbabwe reminded me why.  Maybe Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans and Africans don’t like a world of too much American power — “Mr. Big” got a little too big for them.  But how would they like a world of too little American power?

Not very much, Friedman claims.  And I think he’s right.  Afterall what are the alternative powers?

Russia, though nowhere near its USSR strength, is still the world’s largest single nation geographically.  It has significant influence throughout the world: it has a large economy, large natural resource reserves, a permanent Security Council seat, and a massive military.

China is the worlds largest nation (population).  Though still run by the Communist Party, it is essentially a capitalist nation run by an authoritarian single party.  It’s massive population, military, and economy give it major influence in world affairs.  China also has a permanent seat on the Security Council.  China’s power is growing at a significant rate.

Both nations vetoed the U.S. resolution to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe.  The United States has been working to help the people of Zimbabwe after Robert Mugabe blatantly stole the most recent election.  The country is falling apart and desperately needs help.  China and Russia would rather protect Mugabe, and let him continue to destroy his country, than help the people of Zimbabwe.

There is also the issue of South Africa.  President Thabo Mbeki has strong influence in the region could likely help resolve the problem in Zimbabwe.  But he has steadfastly stood by Robert Mugabe.

If those are the countries that people around the world look up to and respect, they may want to consider what a world where Russia and China are dominant would look like.  As for me, I’m proud that my country is still leading the way for freedom and democracy.  We have little to no strategic or economic interests in Zimbabwe.  But we’re trying to help, because all people deserve freedom.

Friedman sums up:

Which brings me back to America. Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate. The U.N. vote on Zimbabwe demonstrates that this is not true for these “popular” countries — called Russia or China or South Africa — that have no problem siding with a man who is pulverizing his own people.

So, yes, we’re not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.

Posted By: Nick

 
Barack Obama writes his plan for Iraq in today’s NYTimes.  I’m sure this is mostly in response to the criticism he recieved last week when he said he would visit Iraq and reevaluate after his trip.  I think it’s clear he meant he was open to tweeking his plan here and there as required based on the reality of the situation, but never fundamentally mean that his position of ending the war would change.  Of course his poor choice of words left him open to attack, so today he has clearly stated his position so as to avoid any confusion.

Here are some bits I especially like:

Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

But [the Bush/McCain plan] is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

I love it.  He’s saying exactly what we should be doing.  Get out of Iraq ASAP, and get more focused on Afghanistan.

Posted By: Nick

 
On Sunday, Taliban militants in Afghanistan attacked a U.S./NATO military base.  Nine American soldiers were killed, 15 NATO soldiers (likely Americans) were wounded, and 4 Afghani soldiers were wounded.  That the Taliban has been able to regroup to the extent that it feels comfortable attacking a U.S. military base is extremely troublesome.  That they managed to inflict the damage they did is even more troublesome.  Things are not going well in Afghanistan.

I wrote about Afghanistan last week, and I’m sure I will continue to do so.  The fact of the matter is, we have a foolish, shortsighted strategy in Afghanistan that is doing nothing to increase our national security.  Iraq distracted us from what should have been our real focus: Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Now they have regrouped and we are beginning to pay the price.

We need more troops in Afghanistan, we need a new, aggressive military strategy, we need to convince Pakistan to take a more proactive stance against the Taliban; and we need these things now.  If militants in Afghanistan (likely operating from inside Pakistan) are capable of launching such an attack on a U.S. military base, then what else can they do?

Six and a half years into the war in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is unacceptable.  The failure of the Bush Administration to properly execute this war has real consequences that we are now beginning to see.

NYTimes Article

Posted By: Nick

 
Little known fact: the United States is actually fighting TWO wars right now.  There’s the one we all know about, in Iraq, and then there’s this whole other war in a place called Afghanistan.  Amazing, huh?

Well, as it turns out, that other war isn’t going too well these days.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in Pakistan and are causing all sorts of headaches for everyone in the region.  The NYTimes thinks its about time that sodid something about this problem.

Both countries have a common and increasingly urgent interest in rolling back the power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and working together to promote democracy and development in Pakistan. President Bush needs to persuade Pakistan’s leaders of that — and he needs to do it now, before Al Qaeda and the Taliban get any stronger.

For 6 years Bush has not done this.  I’m sure nothing is going to change for his last 6 months in office.  Hopefully the next president will actually do something useful.

Posted By: Nick

 
Bitten, the food blog over at the NYTimes has an interesting post today that gives more information about the whole beer history thing that George Will wrote about.  They also look into tea as the staple drink of Asian cultures.

What do these beer posts have to do with politics?  Nothing at all.  But I find them interesting and I enjoy a good beer now and then!

Posted By: Nick

 
The NYTimes has a piece up about how John McCain may not be eligible to be President.  The problem arises in the fact that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936.  The law making people born there citizens of the United States was passed in 1937, meaning that McCain was not born a citizen, but rather became one just before his first birthday.

There are, Professor Chin argued in his analysis, only two ways to become a natural-born citizen. One, specified in the Constitution, is to be born in the United States. The other way is to be covered by a law enacted by Congress at the time of one’s birth.

Professor Chin wrote that simply being born in the Canal Zone did not satisfy the 14th Amendment, which says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The article is pretty interesting.  I think we can be sure of one thing though: John McCain will never be ruled ineligible by a court.  Although the case can be made that he can’t be President, I find it highly unlikely that a court would ever rule against him.  I think the intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not meant to prevent children of Americans stationed overseas from becoming President.  It much more obviously is meant to apply to people such as Gov. Schwarzenegger (Austria) or Gov. Granholm (Canada).

It would be entertaining to see this case in court though.

Posted By: Nick

 
Go read Gail Collins’ column today: The Audacity of Listening.  For all those folks that just LOVED Barack Obama in the primary and then have just been SHOCKED! by his recent actions, this might open their eyes.

I can’t say anything he has done has surprised me one bit.  As Collins points out, he’s always called for cooperation and compromise.  This is a reason I didn’t support him in the primaries.  I don’t want to cooperate with Republicans.  I want to beat them down and crush them beneath my heel.

Some people think it’d be nice to have a liberal purist be our next president, but in the real world such a person a) won’t win (Dennis Kucinich), and b) won’t be able to govern effectively (Jimmy Carter).  I’m not saying Barack should sell out on every issue, but let’s cut the guy some slack.  He never said he’d be the liberal purist that some of the lefties think he is/should be; and the most important thing is winning.  What good is a perfect candidate that loses?