Duck and Cover
The ports controversy has entered its "terminal" phase: blame-shifting.
The Associated Press reports this afternoon that three important cabinet secretaries, along with the President, have denied prior knowledge of the proposal to allow DPWorld to manage a number of major U.S. ports. The AP puts it this way:
President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and even Treasury Secretary John Snow, who oversees the government committee that approved the deal, all say they did not know about the purchase until after it was finalized. The work was done mostly by assistant secretaries.
For those who have spent any time at all in the federal bureaucracy, the above statement is a flight of fancy. A major initiative like this could not have been developed without the knowledge, consent and, most likely, direction of at least one cabinet secretary. What we see here is a game of musical chairs in which the last person left without a seat will find themselves out of the game. I can guarantee you, there are enough chairs to cover the posteriors of the principles mentioned above.
Several graphs down you can see the real struggle going on. There was an interagency working group of assistant secretaries charged with ironing out the details on the deal. One of them, at the Department of Homeland Security, has immunity protection in the game of bureaucratic survivor, probably in the form of an email chain:
Stewart Baker, a senior Homeland Security official, said he was the sole representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States who objected to the ports deal. Baker said he later changed his vote after DP World agreed to the security conditions. Other officials confirmed Baker's account.
The “changed vote” part of the story mentions means that while some culpability still attaches to Mr. Baker (he could have continued to object to the deal) he has snagged a seat because he at least sensed that this proposal might not pass the smell test and worked to make the package as inoffensive as possible. Baker gets a chair.
What the article does not delve into is who else served on the interagency group who might later be fingered as the tone-deaf political appointee who really “owns” the DPW issue. You can be sure that each an every person in this group has spent the last four days scouring through emails to develop a scenario which affixes blame to someone else while being completely exculpatory to them. The fight for the remaining chairs will be savage.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Mark Steyn Is Never Dull -- And Rarely Wrong
Check out this column from The Austrailian. Then try to sleep.
Check out this column from The Austrailian. Then try to sleep.
Spot-on post about the Summers-Hahvard scandal from the most unlikely of sources -- Alan Dershowitz. PC run amok in the rarified atmosphere of the academy. It's a whole different world "in there."
Signs that sanity still exists in this world: New Hampshire has decided to remove their welcome signs that say "You're going to love it here" and replace them with the much-beloved state motto "Live Free or Die." Here, here.
And I found this a very interesting essay on Leo Strauss, striking into new ground on just what the great thinker and his current devotees are up to. A worthwhile read.
Signs that sanity still exists in this world: New Hampshire has decided to remove their welcome signs that say "You're going to love it here" and replace them with the much-beloved state motto "Live Free or Die." Here, here.
And I found this a very interesting essay on Leo Strauss, striking into new ground on just what the great thinker and his current devotees are up to. A worthwhile read.
Larry, We Hardly Knew Ye
The Times of London runs a post-mortem on the short-lived presidency of Lawrence Summers at Harvard Univeristy. Actually, it doesn't seem that short; more like a slow-motion firing squad.
Other than President Summers' intemperate comments about women in the sciences, I really didn't know much about him despite the fact that a large swath of his government career overlapped (in time, not distinction) with my own. As portrayed in the Times he seems a very unlikely choice for a university president, much less the leader of Harvard. In one very amusing story he seems to have dropped a chicken wing into the cuff of his trousers during a diplomatic reception and walked around the remainder of the evening with the snack appended to his leg. A barbarian at the gate, to be sure.
For reasons that I have never explored in depth, the topic of liberal academic intolerance is one of endless fascination to me. How can people and institutions so committed to a diversity of views be so closed at the same time? And how, HOW can they not understand just how constricted their views are? How can people who spend a good deal of their time denigrating the oppressive authoritarianism of, say, the Roman Catholic Church, not understand that by comparison with academia, the Church is a veritable free-for-all?
Tis a mystery, isn't it? The power of self-deception truly is boundless.
The Times of London runs a post-mortem on the short-lived presidency of Lawrence Summers at Harvard Univeristy. Actually, it doesn't seem that short; more like a slow-motion firing squad.
Other than President Summers' intemperate comments about women in the sciences, I really didn't know much about him despite the fact that a large swath of his government career overlapped (in time, not distinction) with my own. As portrayed in the Times he seems a very unlikely choice for a university president, much less the leader of Harvard. In one very amusing story he seems to have dropped a chicken wing into the cuff of his trousers during a diplomatic reception and walked around the remainder of the evening with the snack appended to his leg. A barbarian at the gate, to be sure.
For reasons that I have never explored in depth, the topic of liberal academic intolerance is one of endless fascination to me. How can people and institutions so committed to a diversity of views be so closed at the same time? And how, HOW can they not understand just how constricted their views are? How can people who spend a good deal of their time denigrating the oppressive authoritarianism of, say, the Roman Catholic Church, not understand that by comparison with academia, the Church is a veritable free-for-all?
Tis a mystery, isn't it? The power of self-deception truly is boundless.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
An informant on the Hill tells me that their office has just started to field Jack Abramoff-Malaysia-Ports calls. First call, handled by a young woman, was as follows:
Not that, you know, anyone's going to get hysterical or anything.
He also told her she'd be a fifth class citizen if we turned over the ports and all he’d see of here was her lovely eyes, because the Taliban would make her cover up everything else. Among other things.
Not that, you know, anyone's going to get hysterical or anything.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
More Port Stuff
I reply: yes! You are!
Dr. Potomac has said everything that I would have, and made the bet that I would have...I hope you took them to the cleaners, Doc. Were the words "Capitol Grill" involved?
The only thing to add is that there is a good symposium at NRO on the "Port Deal". My opinion is basically a composite of those of James Carafano, James Robbins and Michael Ledeen, That is: it's pretty stupid to get worried about loss of American control over shipping after fifty years of abdicating control over all aspects of our maritime infrastructure; this firm does not control the security of the port, the Coast Guard does, and they need more funding; the Administration is obviously making nice to Dubai for the things they have done over the last several years (see James Robbins' list); no matter how smart this idea was for international politics and diplomacy, it was a very silly move to make in domestic politics...or, as Michael Ledeed puts it, "This is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Harriet Meiers nomination to the Supreme Court, isn’t it?"
Ouch. More seriously, is it possible to make the necessary international political moves to further the Long War while still maintaining domestic support? I think it, ultimately, unlikely. Thus the Long War becomes characterized by covert and military options, which cannot do everything...
A friend on Capitol Hill emails me:
Phones are lighting up all day over this Arab-US port purchase. The President fanned the flames and says he'll veto it..everyone's outraged..
My take: President turned up the volume to squeeze out any other media stories...like the one linking a Presidential meeting arranged by indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Heritage foundation, and the President of Malaysia...
Two clever by half?
I reply: yes! You are!
Dr. Potomac has said everything that I would have, and made the bet that I would have...I hope you took them to the cleaners, Doc. Were the words "Capitol Grill" involved?
The only thing to add is that there is a good symposium at NRO on the "Port Deal". My opinion is basically a composite of those of James Carafano, James Robbins and Michael Ledeen, That is: it's pretty stupid to get worried about loss of American control over shipping after fifty years of abdicating control over all aspects of our maritime infrastructure; this firm does not control the security of the port, the Coast Guard does, and they need more funding; the Administration is obviously making nice to Dubai for the things they have done over the last several years (see James Robbins' list); no matter how smart this idea was for international politics and diplomacy, it was a very silly move to make in domestic politics...or, as Michael Ledeed puts it, "This is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Harriet Meiers nomination to the Supreme Court, isn’t it?"
Ouch. More seriously, is it possible to make the necessary international political moves to further the Long War while still maintaining domestic support? I think it, ultimately, unlikely. Thus the Long War becomes characterized by covert and military options, which cannot do everything...
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Administration Shoots; Dr. Potomac Scores!
I had a friendly wager with several co-workers today over the ports controversy. (For those who have been working on their fall-out shelters for the past 72 hours, the Administration has been roasting inside a firestorm of its own making by signing off on a deal to have a Middle East-based firm take over management of most of the major ports on the East and Gulf Coasts.) My co-workers took the position that this was one huge mistake; the Department of Homeland Security had put this package together without consulting the White House. It was just another “heckuva job” moment in the sad, short history of DHS.
I demurred from this theory; the story, I argued, was probably much worse. Not only had the White House been briefed it was going to aggressively support the idea of turning the ports over to Arab management. Why? To demonstrate in a tangible way that even in the midst of the global war on terror the U.S. can distinguish between friends and foes. Shortly after we made this wager, the President came out swinging in support of the deal.
Even if this policy was plausible in a theoretical sense, the politics are a disaster. A president with approval ratings in the high 30s, whose strong suit is national security, and whose party is clinging to a narrow majority with a general election strategy built on reminding the public that the opposition has the judgment of turnip on matters relating to keeping the country safe doesn’t walk a plank to put Abu Dhabi in charge of the arties of commerce.
About the only joy to be had in this story is the politically correct bind it has put the doyens of National Public Radio. On the one hand, any mistake by the Administration is a cause for rejoicing. On the other, one has to be careful about appearing to support nativism. It’s really a matter of having to choose between two first principles ("Bush is bad" and “we are not rubes”) and one could hear the tight, confused smiles through my car radio speakers.
I had a friendly wager with several co-workers today over the ports controversy. (For those who have been working on their fall-out shelters for the past 72 hours, the Administration has been roasting inside a firestorm of its own making by signing off on a deal to have a Middle East-based firm take over management of most of the major ports on the East and Gulf Coasts.) My co-workers took the position that this was one huge mistake; the Department of Homeland Security had put this package together without consulting the White House. It was just another “heckuva job” moment in the sad, short history of DHS.
I demurred from this theory; the story, I argued, was probably much worse. Not only had the White House been briefed it was going to aggressively support the idea of turning the ports over to Arab management. Why? To demonstrate in a tangible way that even in the midst of the global war on terror the U.S. can distinguish between friends and foes. Shortly after we made this wager, the President came out swinging in support of the deal.
Even if this policy was plausible in a theoretical sense, the politics are a disaster. A president with approval ratings in the high 30s, whose strong suit is national security, and whose party is clinging to a narrow majority with a general election strategy built on reminding the public that the opposition has the judgment of turnip on matters relating to keeping the country safe doesn’t walk a plank to put Abu Dhabi in charge of the arties of commerce.
About the only joy to be had in this story is the politically correct bind it has put the doyens of National Public Radio. On the one hand, any mistake by the Administration is a cause for rejoicing. On the other, one has to be careful about appearing to support nativism. It’s really a matter of having to choose between two first principles ("Bush is bad" and “we are not rubes”) and one could hear the tight, confused smiles through my car radio speakers.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
The End of Fukuyamaism
Francis Fukuyama writes of his parting of the ways with neoconservatives in today's NYT magazine. I have to admit I find Mr. Fukuyama among the most interesting (and frustrating) third-way commentators on the scene today. A thoughtful observor, he is periodically tempted to The Grand Theory That Explains Everything. The trouble with grand theories is that they are forced into generalization and as they generalize are subject to death by a thousand op/eds. We’ve been down this road several times with Fukuyama, The End of History (all states evolving toward democracy) and The Great Disruption (in which the good professor decides that birth control is the key to understanding all of the current state of Western culture), to name just two over-arching theories that didn’t hold up to second and third readings.
Today Fukuyama lays out a compelling critique of the Bush Doctrine and says that he takes leave of the neoconservatives. (We’ll have to wait and see whether any of the other neocons notice that he’s gone missing.) Much of what Fukuyama has to say seems indisputable. The grand vision of democracy promotion that lies at the heart of the Bush Doctrine appears to have run aground on the particularities of Muslim culture. (Note of thanks to my good friend at A Mind that Suits who introduced me to this idea that conservatives are drawn not so much to grand visions as to attention to particular historical and cultural circumstances as the main touchstones for policy.) Democracy ain't beanbag and the people of the Middle East don't seem particularly keen on it or prepared to participate in it as a bunch of little Edmund Burkes. When the vote is permitted, the radical Islamists thrive (Iran, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, for examples.) We are spilling blood and treasure to install democracy in a culture that is, essentially, pre-democratic in nature.
Here's where Fukuyama's argument becomes circular in nature. He says the Bush Doctrine won't work while arguing at the same time that the unreconstructed "realist" school (prop up your strongman and extract as much oil as you can) is also unsustainable. In fact, he goes so far as to say that to the extent that we are dealing with democratically elected radicals we are at least dealing with governments that to a significant degree reflect the people they represent (careful readers will recognize this as one of my own reflections on the Hamas victory several weeks ago. Do you think Dr. Fukuyama is reading Dr. Potomac?) This realignment between governments and the governed, Fukuyama says, is a healthy thing in the same way that letting poison seep from one’s veins is healthy. I, then, ask this question: if the Bush Doctrine is failing by creating results like a Hamas-led PA, and if this type of Arab government is the lesser of two evils, then how, again, is Bush Doctrine failing?
The rest of the Fukuyama analysis is pure blather about the need for greater multi-laterialism, and, get ready for this, multi-multilateralism. We need, he says, a variety of sub-global organizations (more NATOs, not more UNs) that can provide political cover for American intervention and avoid the political inconveniences created by unilateral action.
Well, okay, but I am still left with the view that this prong of the Fukuyama Doctrine is whistling past the graveyard. The problem we are facing vis-à-vis the Muslim world is not a lack of political institutions to serve as a front for united action but the evaporation, in a very short period of time, of the political and civilizational will to confront radical Islam at all. Rioting in Paris in 2005 and the more recent unrest over cartoons of the Prophet have met with a shockingly flaccid response, particularly by the American media who have been, shall we say, appeasement-minded in the instance. In short, our major outlets have said, “We won’t reprint the cartoons because we don’t want to gratuitously inflame passions.” I can’t resist making the point that this logic was absolutely nowhere to be found when it came to releasing the latest round of Abu Ghraib torture photos last week. These pictures were not new revelations and were inflammatory of Arab passions in the extreme. The logical conclusion from these nearly contemporaneous episodes is that our own media is more than happy to inflame Arab passions so long as the graphics in question portray the U.S. in the worst possible light. This is no way for a society to wage a protracted twilight struggle against terrorism.
I have the uncomfortable sensation these days of living not through an end-game but through the opening moves of a new world war, and one that we are terribly unprepared to wage at the level of morale, where wars are won and lost. On our side we have technology, prosperity, reason and tolerance. But our will to fight for birthrights has been undermined by decades of cultural relativism and reflexive victimology. Our adversaries have the irreplaceable advantage of being untroubled by their own inhumanity and intolerance. They make no apologies and will meet each of ours with greater and greater demands. In this conflict, what the radical Islamists lack in material assets they more than make up for in their dark passions. The storm clouds gather and we ignore the signs at our own peril.
Francis Fukuyama writes of his parting of the ways with neoconservatives in today's NYT magazine. I have to admit I find Mr. Fukuyama among the most interesting (and frustrating) third-way commentators on the scene today. A thoughtful observor, he is periodically tempted to The Grand Theory That Explains Everything. The trouble with grand theories is that they are forced into generalization and as they generalize are subject to death by a thousand op/eds. We’ve been down this road several times with Fukuyama, The End of History (all states evolving toward democracy) and The Great Disruption (in which the good professor decides that birth control is the key to understanding all of the current state of Western culture), to name just two over-arching theories that didn’t hold up to second and third readings.
Today Fukuyama lays out a compelling critique of the Bush Doctrine and says that he takes leave of the neoconservatives. (We’ll have to wait and see whether any of the other neocons notice that he’s gone missing.) Much of what Fukuyama has to say seems indisputable. The grand vision of democracy promotion that lies at the heart of the Bush Doctrine appears to have run aground on the particularities of Muslim culture. (Note of thanks to my good friend at A Mind that Suits who introduced me to this idea that conservatives are drawn not so much to grand visions as to attention to particular historical and cultural circumstances as the main touchstones for policy.) Democracy ain't beanbag and the people of the Middle East don't seem particularly keen on it or prepared to participate in it as a bunch of little Edmund Burkes. When the vote is permitted, the radical Islamists thrive (Iran, Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, for examples.) We are spilling blood and treasure to install democracy in a culture that is, essentially, pre-democratic in nature.
Here's where Fukuyama's argument becomes circular in nature. He says the Bush Doctrine won't work while arguing at the same time that the unreconstructed "realist" school (prop up your strongman and extract as much oil as you can) is also unsustainable. In fact, he goes so far as to say that to the extent that we are dealing with democratically elected radicals we are at least dealing with governments that to a significant degree reflect the people they represent (careful readers will recognize this as one of my own reflections on the Hamas victory several weeks ago. Do you think Dr. Fukuyama is reading Dr. Potomac?) This realignment between governments and the governed, Fukuyama says, is a healthy thing in the same way that letting poison seep from one’s veins is healthy. I, then, ask this question: if the Bush Doctrine is failing by creating results like a Hamas-led PA, and if this type of Arab government is the lesser of two evils, then how, again, is Bush Doctrine failing?
The rest of the Fukuyama analysis is pure blather about the need for greater multi-laterialism, and, get ready for this, multi-multilateralism. We need, he says, a variety of sub-global organizations (more NATOs, not more UNs) that can provide political cover for American intervention and avoid the political inconveniences created by unilateral action.
Well, okay, but I am still left with the view that this prong of the Fukuyama Doctrine is whistling past the graveyard. The problem we are facing vis-à-vis the Muslim world is not a lack of political institutions to serve as a front for united action but the evaporation, in a very short period of time, of the political and civilizational will to confront radical Islam at all. Rioting in Paris in 2005 and the more recent unrest over cartoons of the Prophet have met with a shockingly flaccid response, particularly by the American media who have been, shall we say, appeasement-minded in the instance. In short, our major outlets have said, “We won’t reprint the cartoons because we don’t want to gratuitously inflame passions.” I can’t resist making the point that this logic was absolutely nowhere to be found when it came to releasing the latest round of Abu Ghraib torture photos last week. These pictures were not new revelations and were inflammatory of Arab passions in the extreme. The logical conclusion from these nearly contemporaneous episodes is that our own media is more than happy to inflame Arab passions so long as the graphics in question portray the U.S. in the worst possible light. This is no way for a society to wage a protracted twilight struggle against terrorism.
I have the uncomfortable sensation these days of living not through an end-game but through the opening moves of a new world war, and one that we are terribly unprepared to wage at the level of morale, where wars are won and lost. On our side we have technology, prosperity, reason and tolerance. But our will to fight for birthrights has been undermined by decades of cultural relativism and reflexive victimology. Our adversaries have the irreplaceable advantage of being untroubled by their own inhumanity and intolerance. They make no apologies and will meet each of ours with greater and greater demands. In this conflict, what the radical Islamists lack in material assets they more than make up for in their dark passions. The storm clouds gather and we ignore the signs at our own peril.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Setting the Record Straight
My chops are pretty much fully busted over my Battlestar Galactica post with both the Style Editor and the Ombudsman having taken their shots in public and in private. I would like it noted for the blog record, however, that both of my colleagues have indicated a strong interest in watching BG after reading the piece. The Style Editor has even added it to her Netflix queue. Geeks of a feather, in my book.
My chops are pretty much fully busted over my Battlestar Galactica post with both the Style Editor and the Ombudsman having taken their shots in public and in private. I would like it noted for the blog record, however, that both of my colleagues have indicated a strong interest in watching BG after reading the piece. The Style Editor has even added it to her Netflix queue. Geeks of a feather, in my book.
Whoo-wheee! None of us can keep up with Dr. Potomac, now that he has a) a new very heavy laptop and b) an ultrafast wireless network.
Myself, I saw the Style Editor over the weekend. "Did you see Dr. Potomac's Battlestar Galactica post," she asks? "Well," I says, "well, I did not read beyond a couple of sentences, and am foregoing that pleasure for later. You?" She clears her throat, and says the following, "Well, I heard it in person, so I do not not need to read it. And I was backing slowly towards the door during his monologue, at that."
Myself, I saw the Style Editor over the weekend. "Did you see Dr. Potomac's Battlestar Galactica post," she asks? "Well," I says, "well, I did not read beyond a couple of sentences, and am foregoing that pleasure for later. You?" She clears her throat, and says the following, "Well, I heard it in person, so I do not not need to read it. And I was backing slowly towards the door during his monologue, at that."
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Presidential Handicapping
For the life of me, I can't understand why George Allen would be at the top of the list unless the sample is biased toward Virginia Republicans for some reason. His appeal is inexplicable to me -- too much of the jock (or at least the son of a jock) politician in him for me. Besides, he's completely unreliable on social issues. Every politician is a balance of ambition and principle. Allen's meter tips too far toward ambition for me.
As I have admitted in the past I have a soft spot for McCain based on personal experience with the guy. His two biggest assets are the fact that he is rock-solid on national security (the Ombudsman has opined on occasion that he's too much of a hawk which is really saying something in my book), a squish on stem cell research (bad) and God knows what he would do in terms of staffing the federal agencies. I fear significant leftward drift. On the other hand, we Republicans are royalists to the core and I don't think the party can bring itself to reject someone who ran second last time and has been, more or less, a good team player for President Bush, especially on Iraq and terrorism. Besides, he is easily the most electable of the bunch, especially if he takes a conservative carpet-chewer as his number 2.
Which brings me to Sam Brownback. His campaign for president is going to be an implosion of the first order but he has the chops to be a good VP candidate and hold down the right wing in a general election contest. And he's so ambitious he'd be begging for the nomination.
The rest of the guys on this list have about as much chance of being President of the United States as your average contributor to Dr. Curmudgeon and Company. Giuliani, too compromised on social issues; never gets out of Iowa. Bill First? You jest. Did you see his speech at the 2004 convention? That's how he actually talks -- after speech coaching.
Of course, I don't regard the list as being complete. Governors have a way of coming out of nowhere and the actual entrants may look a lot different than this sampling.
For the life of me, I can't understand why George Allen would be at the top of the list unless the sample is biased toward Virginia Republicans for some reason. His appeal is inexplicable to me -- too much of the jock (or at least the son of a jock) politician in him for me. Besides, he's completely unreliable on social issues. Every politician is a balance of ambition and principle. Allen's meter tips too far toward ambition for me.
As I have admitted in the past I have a soft spot for McCain based on personal experience with the guy. His two biggest assets are the fact that he is rock-solid on national security (the Ombudsman has opined on occasion that he's too much of a hawk which is really saying something in my book), a squish on stem cell research (bad) and God knows what he would do in terms of staffing the federal agencies. I fear significant leftward drift. On the other hand, we Republicans are royalists to the core and I don't think the party can bring itself to reject someone who ran second last time and has been, more or less, a good team player for President Bush, especially on Iraq and terrorism. Besides, he is easily the most electable of the bunch, especially if he takes a conservative carpet-chewer as his number 2.
Which brings me to Sam Brownback. His campaign for president is going to be an implosion of the first order but he has the chops to be a good VP candidate and hold down the right wing in a general election contest. And he's so ambitious he'd be begging for the nomination.
The rest of the guys on this list have about as much chance of being President of the United States as your average contributor to Dr. Curmudgeon and Company. Giuliani, too compromised on social issues; never gets out of Iowa. Bill First? You jest. Did you see his speech at the 2004 convention? That's how he actually talks -- after speech coaching.
Of course, I don't regard the list as being complete. Governors have a way of coming out of nowhere and the actual entrants may look a lot different than this sampling.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Human Events published the CPAC poll on who will be the next Republican nominee. Here are the totals:
George Allen: 22%
John McCain: 20%
Rudy Giuliani: 12%
Condoleezza Rice: 10%
Bill Frist: 6%
Tom Tancredo: 5%
Mitt Romney: 5%
Newt Gingrich: 5%
Rick Santorum: 3%
George Pataki: 3%
Undecided: 4%
Count me a little uninspired. McCain, Guiliani, Frist, Gingrich, and Pataki are underwhelming. I need to know more about Allen, but first impressions are a bit low. Rice won't run. I like Romney only because I am from New England -- no other reason, pure parochialism.
Could I ask Dr. Potomac and the Style Editor to use their insider DC knowledge and tell those of us in the Red States why (1.) Sam Brownback isn't on this list, and (2.) why he is chuckled about privately?
And could they give us any other names to look at? This list has me yawning.
George Allen: 22%
John McCain: 20%
Rudy Giuliani: 12%
Condoleezza Rice: 10%
Bill Frist: 6%
Tom Tancredo: 5%
Mitt Romney: 5%
Newt Gingrich: 5%
Rick Santorum: 3%
George Pataki: 3%
Undecided: 4%
Count me a little uninspired. McCain, Guiliani, Frist, Gingrich, and Pataki are underwhelming. I need to know more about Allen, but first impressions are a bit low. Rice won't run. I like Romney only because I am from New England -- no other reason, pure parochialism.
Could I ask Dr. Potomac and the Style Editor to use their insider DC knowledge and tell those of us in the Red States why (1.) Sam Brownback isn't on this list, and (2.) why he is chuckled about privately?
And could they give us any other names to look at? This list has me yawning.
Rite of Spring
Many people may find it dumb, some beyond understanding, others simply quaint. But for many lifelong New Englanders (even those, like yours truly, in exile), the Red Sox truck leaving Fenway Park for Florida spring training is a momentous, seasonal event. It warms the heart, on this windy, cold Indiana day, to know that spring training is close upon us, that the slow warmth of spring will soon be creeping north, that nights listening to a ball game on the car radio are just around the corner. So sayeth Red Sox PR man Charles Steinberg:
In any baseball city, the truck's departure for Spring Training connects with a lot of fans. In Boston and in New England, that is magnified so many times over. Instead of just making it our little private fireplace of warmth, you want to connect with the fans, resonate with the fans, share it with the fans, give them a chance to celebrate spring as well.
When you see the images of snow at one end and sunshine at the other ... this trip is a metaphor. Winter is going to end. Spring is going to come. And baseball is the robin. Baseball heralds spring. You want to celebrate that.
Here, here, and amen. Opening Day is the next milestone (okay, perhaps St. Patrick's Day comes in a close second). I can recall in high school how many had Sony Walkmans in class, listening to every pitch, and how the end-of-the-day announcements over the intercom included the latest score from Fenway. The three R's are important, sure, but let's not lose sight of the really important things.
Give me baseball and soon.
Many people may find it dumb, some beyond understanding, others simply quaint. But for many lifelong New Englanders (even those, like yours truly, in exile), the Red Sox truck leaving Fenway Park for Florida spring training is a momentous, seasonal event. It warms the heart, on this windy, cold Indiana day, to know that spring training is close upon us, that the slow warmth of spring will soon be creeping north, that nights listening to a ball game on the car radio are just around the corner. So sayeth Red Sox PR man Charles Steinberg:
In any baseball city, the truck's departure for Spring Training connects with a lot of fans. In Boston and in New England, that is magnified so many times over. Instead of just making it our little private fireplace of warmth, you want to connect with the fans, resonate with the fans, share it with the fans, give them a chance to celebrate spring as well.
When you see the images of snow at one end and sunshine at the other ... this trip is a metaphor. Winter is going to end. Spring is going to come. And baseball is the robin. Baseball heralds spring. You want to celebrate that.
Here, here, and amen. Opening Day is the next milestone (okay, perhaps St. Patrick's Day comes in a close second). I can recall in high school how many had Sony Walkmans in class, listening to every pitch, and how the end-of-the-day announcements over the intercom included the latest score from Fenway. The three R's are important, sure, but let's not lose sight of the really important things.
Give me baseball and soon.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
First Things and Battlestar Galactica
At the risk of veering off into the fever swamps of sci-fi fandom, I’d like to make a plug for Battlestar Galactica. As nearly as I can tell, and against all reason, this show is probably the most serious offering on television for exploring the boundaries and relationship between faith and public life.
Really, you say, how interesting. Tell me more.
Well, if you insist.
For those unacquainted with the background of the show, the Battlestar Galactica on the Sci-Fi channel, is a grimy, minimalist update of the velveeta-drenched 1970s, post-Star Wars television program starring Loren Green and a host of eminently forgettable actors. It appears to have been filmed mostly in British Columbia which probably accounts for the fact that the entire cast looks grungy even when in dress military uniforms. About the only thing the new series has in common with the old is its basic premise: 12 colonies of human beings numbering in the billions of people are effectively wiped out by humanoid machines called Cylons armed with nuclear weapons. The remnant survivors form up around the last surviving military ship, the Galactica, and begin their trek to…somewhere. Here’s where the religion angle comes in.
It is pretty clear that before the Cylons begin nuking the humans, the colonists were fat, complacent, and drained of spiritual energy. The gods (names identical to the gods of ancient Greece) are worshipped in a pro forma manner, treated as a kind of corporate mythology to prop up the state and unify the civilization. The gods themselves are without value because in the minds of most they don’t exist. Among the technocrats of the 12 colonies, religion is boob-bait for bubbas. (Speaking of that, the most religious colony is Gemenon which appears to have been inhabited entirely by black Baptists. Wade Henderson, call the Racial Stereotypes Division.)
Here the show’s writers take note of the atheists-in-foxhole conundrum. With colonial civilization in ruins and Cylons dropping out of hyperspace every 33 minutes to finish off what’s left of the human race, the hard-pressed colonists are facing a crisis of hope. Through despair, religion makes a come-back. The colonial scriptures tell the story of a 13th colony called Earth. Galactica’s commander, Adama (first man, get it?), declares that he knows the location of Earth which has been a closely guarded government secret. He will lead the people to salvation. In fact, Adama has lied, playing the old double game of using religion to rally the people while believing not a word he says about the existence of Earth.
Adama’s civilian counterpart, President Roslyn, under a death sentence from cancer, finds true faith. She believes in Earth’s existence, that the scriptures are authentic and the information they contain essential to human survival. Her religious vision animates her constitutional role as leader and protector of the people. As she agitates for finding the way to find Earth, Adama leads a coup against her government. Undeterred, Roslyn peels off a third of the civilian fleet to search for Kobol, the ancient home planet of human civilization. On Kobol, she finds what she’s looking for, a kind of planetarium that shows the general direction of the Earth. For the first time since the attack there is hope and direction for the survivors. Even Adama is converted to her viewpoint. Technology has failed, military strength has been found wanting. The myth, it turns out, is both true and full of hope.
The human struggle to balance and integrate religion and public life is juxtaposed against the single-minded religious fervency of the Cylons themselves. In the old series, the Cylons were pure machine. In the new show, they appear identical to humans – only sexier. Unlike the lukewarm polytheistic colonists, however, the Cylons are zealous monotheists serving the One True God. They evangelize the top human scientist and tell him to repent of his sins. The head Cylon, the eye-popping Number 6, says repeatedly that God has a destiny for each person. She also makes it clear that you don’t want to be a sinner in the hands of angry Cylon. Here is the worst of religion as we know it: belief at the point of a sword, an inquisition, holy coercion, a jihad. In their single-minded war against the humans, they resemble nothing so much as al-Qaeda out to impose a universal caliphate.
It is hard to watch these murderous Cylons without feeling a twinge of sympathy. Their war appears to be a nuclear powered adolescent rebellion on steroids. These are the children of men returned with a vengeance. The implication is that these beings are made not begotten, filled with gifts but devoid of love. One of the sub-themes of the show is the Cylon effort to duplicate human reproductive processes. I doubt we will find this to be a simple issue of the relative efficiencies of cell division versus manufacturing. The Cylons want to be fully human, and, perhaps, to supplant the colonists as the sole heirs of divine love. In their desperate effort to replicate every detail of human life they are pathetic and menacing at the same time.
There is much to be examined in this series, and it is interesting the producers devoted so much of the first and second seasons to the complexities of religion in a democratic society and to driving home the point that for faith to be real it has to be freely chosen as well. It is ironic that in a time when the role of religious faith in public life has taken center stage both at home and abroad, it has fallen to a science fiction program to ask questions unfit for prime time. For the sake of economics, Hollywood might want to rethink that. It turns out sleek special effects and ersatz high-technology are unnecessary when a program inhabits a rich moral universe.
At the risk of veering off into the fever swamps of sci-fi fandom, I’d like to make a plug for Battlestar Galactica. As nearly as I can tell, and against all reason, this show is probably the most serious offering on television for exploring the boundaries and relationship between faith and public life.
Really, you say, how interesting. Tell me more.
Well, if you insist.
For those unacquainted with the background of the show, the Battlestar Galactica on the Sci-Fi channel, is a grimy, minimalist update of the velveeta-drenched 1970s, post-Star Wars television program starring Loren Green and a host of eminently forgettable actors. It appears to have been filmed mostly in British Columbia which probably accounts for the fact that the entire cast looks grungy even when in dress military uniforms. About the only thing the new series has in common with the old is its basic premise: 12 colonies of human beings numbering in the billions of people are effectively wiped out by humanoid machines called Cylons armed with nuclear weapons. The remnant survivors form up around the last surviving military ship, the Galactica, and begin their trek to…somewhere. Here’s where the religion angle comes in.
It is pretty clear that before the Cylons begin nuking the humans, the colonists were fat, complacent, and drained of spiritual energy. The gods (names identical to the gods of ancient Greece) are worshipped in a pro forma manner, treated as a kind of corporate mythology to prop up the state and unify the civilization. The gods themselves are without value because in the minds of most they don’t exist. Among the technocrats of the 12 colonies, religion is boob-bait for bubbas. (Speaking of that, the most religious colony is Gemenon which appears to have been inhabited entirely by black Baptists. Wade Henderson, call the Racial Stereotypes Division.)
Here the show’s writers take note of the atheists-in-foxhole conundrum. With colonial civilization in ruins and Cylons dropping out of hyperspace every 33 minutes to finish off what’s left of the human race, the hard-pressed colonists are facing a crisis of hope. Through despair, religion makes a come-back. The colonial scriptures tell the story of a 13th colony called Earth. Galactica’s commander, Adama (first man, get it?), declares that he knows the location of Earth which has been a closely guarded government secret. He will lead the people to salvation. In fact, Adama has lied, playing the old double game of using religion to rally the people while believing not a word he says about the existence of Earth.
Adama’s civilian counterpart, President Roslyn, under a death sentence from cancer, finds true faith. She believes in Earth’s existence, that the scriptures are authentic and the information they contain essential to human survival. Her religious vision animates her constitutional role as leader and protector of the people. As she agitates for finding the way to find Earth, Adama leads a coup against her government. Undeterred, Roslyn peels off a third of the civilian fleet to search for Kobol, the ancient home planet of human civilization. On Kobol, she finds what she’s looking for, a kind of planetarium that shows the general direction of the Earth. For the first time since the attack there is hope and direction for the survivors. Even Adama is converted to her viewpoint. Technology has failed, military strength has been found wanting. The myth, it turns out, is both true and full of hope.
The human struggle to balance and integrate religion and public life is juxtaposed against the single-minded religious fervency of the Cylons themselves. In the old series, the Cylons were pure machine. In the new show, they appear identical to humans – only sexier. Unlike the lukewarm polytheistic colonists, however, the Cylons are zealous monotheists serving the One True God. They evangelize the top human scientist and tell him to repent of his sins. The head Cylon, the eye-popping Number 6, says repeatedly that God has a destiny for each person. She also makes it clear that you don’t want to be a sinner in the hands of angry Cylon. Here is the worst of religion as we know it: belief at the point of a sword, an inquisition, holy coercion, a jihad. In their single-minded war against the humans, they resemble nothing so much as al-Qaeda out to impose a universal caliphate.
It is hard to watch these murderous Cylons without feeling a twinge of sympathy. Their war appears to be a nuclear powered adolescent rebellion on steroids. These are the children of men returned with a vengeance. The implication is that these beings are made not begotten, filled with gifts but devoid of love. One of the sub-themes of the show is the Cylon effort to duplicate human reproductive processes. I doubt we will find this to be a simple issue of the relative efficiencies of cell division versus manufacturing. The Cylons want to be fully human, and, perhaps, to supplant the colonists as the sole heirs of divine love. In their desperate effort to replicate every detail of human life they are pathetic and menacing at the same time.
There is much to be examined in this series, and it is interesting the producers devoted so much of the first and second seasons to the complexities of religion in a democratic society and to driving home the point that for faith to be real it has to be freely chosen as well. It is ironic that in a time when the role of religious faith in public life has taken center stage both at home and abroad, it has fallen to a science fiction program to ask questions unfit for prime time. For the sake of economics, Hollywood might want to rethink that. It turns out sleek special effects and ersatz high-technology are unnecessary when a program inhabits a rich moral universe.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Be sure to check out the latest profile of White House speechwriter-cum-senior-advisor, Mike Gerson. As I keep telling every committed Christian I know, the next President is going to be a huge disappointment -- even if he or she is a Republican. Bush not only shares the values of evangelicals, he expresses those values in a language that appeals to the God-minded. That is largely the work of Mr. Gerson who has truly set a new standard for presidential speechwriting.
Monday, February 06, 2006
With all this posting, I feel I should say something...
Silence is golden?
No? Then you’ve have to settle for a legal tale.
One of the Style Editor’s comrades of yore is now an assistant DA, protecting the fair and fortunate citizens of her area with her razzle–dazzle legal skills and not inconsiderable common sense. Occasionally, as a sort of public service and exubernatcelebration of th efact that she is no longer in private practice, she shares the occasional tale, such as the following:
The Beauty of Having Nothing Left
This is another one of my "why I love my job" moments. I had a pro se motion hearing yesterday with a guy named Louis. Louis was representing himself because he was dissatisfied with the mediocre representation he had been receiving these past five years. While I still don't have a clue as to what specifically Louis was asking the Court to do for him, like most prisoners I deal with, at the end of the day he was generally just hoping that we were going to change our mind about things and send him home.
About 15 minutes into the hearing (and about an hour after I first started trying to figure out what it was he wanted and 30 minutes after I first realized he was perhaps the dumbest man I have ever met), Louis finally began to realize that we weren't changing our minds and that he was in fact going to have to finish serving the balance of his prison term. It was at that moment that he realized that, since he was already maxing out, he had nothing left to lose. He looked up at the Judge and with a great deal of sincerity and passion stated, "I would like the record to reflect that the Commonwealth can KISS MY ASS."
I must admit it was a beautiful moment. I am also pleased to report that Louis still has approximately 12 months left to relive that glory out at the local pen.
Silence is golden?
No? Then you’ve have to settle for a legal tale.
One of the Style Editor’s comrades of yore is now an assistant DA, protecting the fair and fortunate citizens of her area with her razzle–dazzle legal skills and not inconsiderable common sense. Occasionally, as a sort of public service and exubernatcelebration of th efact that she is no longer in private practice, she shares the occasional tale, such as the following:
The Beauty of Having Nothing Left
This is another one of my "why I love my job" moments. I had a pro se motion hearing yesterday with a guy named Louis. Louis was representing himself because he was dissatisfied with the mediocre representation he had been receiving these past five years. While I still don't have a clue as to what specifically Louis was asking the Court to do for him, like most prisoners I deal with, at the end of the day he was generally just hoping that we were going to change our mind about things and send him home.
About 15 minutes into the hearing (and about an hour after I first started trying to figure out what it was he wanted and 30 minutes after I first realized he was perhaps the dumbest man I have ever met), Louis finally began to realize that we weren't changing our minds and that he was in fact going to have to finish serving the balance of his prison term. It was at that moment that he realized that, since he was already maxing out, he had nothing left to lose. He looked up at the Judge and with a great deal of sincerity and passion stated, "I would like the record to reflect that the Commonwealth can KISS MY ASS."
I must admit it was a beautiful moment. I am also pleased to report that Louis still has approximately 12 months left to relive that glory out at the local pen.
Let me take a moment to do Bunnie Diehl's work for her. (Thank me, Bunnie.)
So here is Christianity Today on the National Prayer Breakfast. Key 'graph:
Then CT goes and kind of confuses the matter. They write that King Abdullah of Jordan, according to his advisor Joseph Lumbard, "wants to engage in a deeper dialogue with Catholics and members of other Christian traditions."
[Ed.–BTW, what do you think of the Jeff Sharlet piece on Sam Brownback in Rolling Stone? Well, not that much. It's cringe-inducing, sure, because it involves Sam Brownback; but my respect for Sharlet continues to wane. He used to be God-haunted, but he now seems to find it much easier to be a sort of Side Show Barker of Freaks, Geeks and Deaks of American Religious Life for an eye-rolling Upper East Side audience. This is not a hard job.]
So here is Christianity Today on the National Prayer Breakfast. Key 'graph:
The prayer breakfast, begun during the Eisenhower administration, historically draws 3,600 attendees from 155 nations, including heads of state. A low-profile group commonly known as Fellowship Foundation sponsors the annual event. The group's well-connected members around the world work behind the scenes to provide members of Congress and foreign dignitaries with spiritual encouragement and fellowship. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minnesota, who co-chaired the breakfast with Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas, is the event's first Jewish chair.
Then CT goes and kind of confuses the matter. They write that King Abdullah of Jordan, according to his advisor Joseph Lumbard, "wants to engage in a deeper dialogue with Catholics and members of other Christian traditions."
"We all have an interest in a secure and just peace in the Holy Land," Lumbard said. He added that the king has also been trying to "help evangelicals come to a more thorough understanding of the traditional teachings of Islam" and address misunderstandings resulting from the claims of extremists. Following the luncheon he met with a select group of evangelical leaders.
Color me crazy, but doesn't that kind of retroactively go and make the whole Prayer Breakfast kind of, you know, Evangelical and Protestant? When, at long last, this year any pretense to being a Christian gathering was finally dropped and it is finally and matter-of-factly a gathering of Interfaith American Civil Religion? When even "the Fellowship" has for years resisted being called Christian? (Remember, it's "Jesus plus Nothing"?)
Just asking.
[Ed.–BTW, what do you think of the Jeff Sharlet piece on Sam Brownback in Rolling Stone? Well, not that much. It's cringe-inducing, sure, because it involves Sam Brownback; but my respect for Sharlet continues to wane. He used to be God-haunted, but he now seems to find it much easier to be a sort of Side Show Barker of Freaks, Geeks and Deaks of American Religious Life for an eye-rolling Upper East Side audience. This is not a hard job.]
Sunday, February 05, 2006
In RE The Danes
Fascinating thing to see the Danes struggle with the problem of their own determined pluralism. It turns out that not everyone is as committed to the principle of live-and-let-live as some of our European allies thought they would be. A substantial segment of the Muslim community seems completely unreconciled to notions like a free press, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, etc. At the same time, they seem to have fully internalized the rights-demanding victim culture, which is handy if you are trying to generate a smoke-screen to cover tyrannical impulses.
It is time for Europe to wake up and, to paraphrase Justice Robert Jackson, acknowledge that tolerance and pluralism cannot become suicide notes. Pluralism and tolerance have to be defended -- even to the extent of tapping phones and engaging in the occasional pre-emptive strike -- if these ideas are not going to be used as a hammer to destroy the societies that generate them. Keeping a republic, or even a constitutional monarchy, puts demands on all of us. Even the Danes.
Fascinating thing to see the Danes struggle with the problem of their own determined pluralism. It turns out that not everyone is as committed to the principle of live-and-let-live as some of our European allies thought they would be. A substantial segment of the Muslim community seems completely unreconciled to notions like a free press, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, etc. At the same time, they seem to have fully internalized the rights-demanding victim culture, which is handy if you are trying to generate a smoke-screen to cover tyrannical impulses.
It is time for Europe to wake up and, to paraphrase Justice Robert Jackson, acknowledge that tolerance and pluralism cannot become suicide notes. Pluralism and tolerance have to be defended -- even to the extent of tapping phones and engaging in the occasional pre-emptive strike -- if these ideas are not going to be used as a hammer to destroy the societies that generate them. Keeping a republic, or even a constitutional monarchy, puts demands on all of us. Even the Danes.
Darn decent article by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe, "We are all Danes now." Alternately stunning and pleasing to see the Continentals of Old Europe finally showing some backbone, is it not?
Count me as thinking this is fascinating -- Mussolini's last surviving child has died, his son Romano at age 79. He was an accomplished jazz pianist who played with all the greats of the 50s and 60s (talk about anti-fascist) AND was married to Sophia Loren's sister. Whoah!
Having some chicken wings for your Super Bowl party? How about this guy? He won a wing eating contest in Philly...173 chicken wings...
Count me as thinking this is fascinating -- Mussolini's last surviving child has died, his son Romano at age 79. He was an accomplished jazz pianist who played with all the greats of the 50s and 60s (talk about anti-fascist) AND was married to Sophia Loren's sister. Whoah!
Having some chicken wings for your Super Bowl party? How about this guy? He won a wing eating contest in Philly...173 chicken wings...
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Thoughts on Boehner
Dr. Potomac has had only very limited exposure to now-Majority Leader John Boehner but he thinks that exposure is instructive nonetheless. A number of years ago, Dr. Potomac attended a political fundraising event where Boehner was present. There he was slouched in a comfortable chair, cigarette in one hand and a darkish whiskey in the other regailing what Dr. Potomac assumes was a lobbyist with what he further assumes was a joke Boehner wouldn't want attributed to him in print. Boehner was all deep-set eyes, darkly tanned skin and cynicism. This is the man to whom the House Republicans have entrusted their future. Because cynical men have their place when narrow majorities are at stake, Dr. Potomac withholds judgment as to whether Boehner as leader is a good or bad idea.
Oh, and one other thing. A close professional associate of Dr. Potomac who is frequently called on for advice relating to personnel has a rather iron-clad rule: never hire a Boehner staffer. Something to ponder, isn't it?
Dr. Potomac has had only very limited exposure to now-Majority Leader John Boehner but he thinks that exposure is instructive nonetheless. A number of years ago, Dr. Potomac attended a political fundraising event where Boehner was present. There he was slouched in a comfortable chair, cigarette in one hand and a darkish whiskey in the other regailing what Dr. Potomac assumes was a lobbyist with what he further assumes was a joke Boehner wouldn't want attributed to him in print. Boehner was all deep-set eyes, darkly tanned skin and cynicism. This is the man to whom the House Republicans have entrusted their future. Because cynical men have their place when narrow majorities are at stake, Dr. Potomac withholds judgment as to whether Boehner as leader is a good or bad idea.
Oh, and one other thing. A close professional associate of Dr. Potomac who is frequently called on for advice relating to personnel has a rather iron-clad rule: never hire a Boehner staffer. Something to ponder, isn't it?
Friday, February 03, 2006
Oh I don't know about that. I think the test is HIGHLY accurate.
I'm a Mercedes SLK!
You appreciate the finer things in life. You have a split personality - wild or conservative, depending on your mood. Wherever you go, you like to travel first class. Luxury, style, and fun - who could ask for more?
Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
OK, much to his surprise the computer indicates, somewhat tentatively, that Dr. Potomac is a sporty Honda S200. Since anyone who has made Dr. Potomac's acquaintance would probably be quite surprised to see him behind the wheel of such a vehicle, it makes him wonder whether this test isn't somewhat less accurate than one of those personality tests they give at church retreats and government employee training conferences.
I thought I would come out an Edsel or Ford Falcon, but turns out I am a practical Mazda Rx-3.
As per my curmudgeonly reputation, I move to eliminate the State of the Union Address and return to the "Annual Address to Congress," which was used from Jefferson to Wilson. The only thing missing Tuesday was Joan Rivers standing on the red carpet critiquing congressional dress -- one network actually asked its analysts, "President Bush is wearing a blue tie. What do you think is the significance of this?" How did he dress? How was his "delivery?" Who gives a flying fish? Just write up a message, send it to Congress, and have the clerks read it. If it was good enough for Franklin Pierce, it's good enough for George Bush (they are distant relatives, you know).
Drunk riding is legal in South Dakota. Giddyup!
Good point over at the "other" curmudgeon site, Joys of Curmudgeonry. "If the cartoon-caricatures of the prophet Muhammad were meant to propagate a dim view of the character of Islam, they do not do so as nearly as well as do the reactions to them in the Muslim world."
As per my curmudgeonly reputation, I move to eliminate the State of the Union Address and return to the "Annual Address to Congress," which was used from Jefferson to Wilson. The only thing missing Tuesday was Joan Rivers standing on the red carpet critiquing congressional dress -- one network actually asked its analysts, "President Bush is wearing a blue tie. What do you think is the significance of this?" How did he dress? How was his "delivery?" Who gives a flying fish? Just write up a message, send it to Congress, and have the clerks read it. If it was good enough for Franklin Pierce, it's good enough for George Bush (they are distant relatives, you know).
Drunk riding is legal in South Dakota. Giddyup!
Good point over at the "other" curmudgeon site, Joys of Curmudgeonry. "If the cartoon-caricatures of the prophet Muhammad were meant to propagate a dim view of the character of Islam, they do not do so as nearly as well as do the reactions to them in the Muslim world."
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
I'm a Dodge Viper!
You're all about raw power. You're tough, you're loud, and you don't take crap from anyone. Leave finesse to the other cars, the ones eating your dust.
Take the Which Sports Car Are You? quiz.
Here that, Doc? Back off. I don't take nothing from nobody, understand? Yeah.
Now I will go move my Neon before it gets a ticket...
Another Warning Shot in Virginia
Democrats captured another Assembly seat in a special election yesterday. This time the victory came in Loudon County, one of the high-growth ex-urbs of a type that fueled President Bush's victory in 2004. Admittedly, not all ex-urbs are equal. Loudon's close proximity to DC makes it a haven for current and former bureaucrats and those who make their living off the federal contracting teat. Leesburg, the county seat, is trending artsy these days, a kind of St. Michael's, Maryland without the water. During a recent visit to Leesburg, Dr. Potomac passed a late-night palm-reading/blue-grass music joint right in the middle of town. He thinks this an ill omen in terms of Loudon's cultural and political future.
The scale of Democrat Mark Herring's victory is impressive as he garnered almost 70 percent of the vote over Mick Staton, a Republican county supervisor. The main issues in the race were the pace of development and traffic congestion -- not too suprising given the growing pains of the outer suburbs. The underlying problem for the Republican was undoubtedly that virtually no one was paying attention to a Statehouse by-election at the end of January. That's all well and good, but why not? Dr. Potomac thinks something deeper is at work here. After two very intense, "national security" elections and the grinding war in Iraq, he fears the base may be in a state of semi-exhaustion. And, while he appreciates Karl Rove's recent framing of the 2006 mid-term elections in national security terms, he wonders how much juice is actually in that issue right now. The trends don't look good this morning.
Democrats captured another Assembly seat in a special election yesterday. This time the victory came in Loudon County, one of the high-growth ex-urbs of a type that fueled President Bush's victory in 2004. Admittedly, not all ex-urbs are equal. Loudon's close proximity to DC makes it a haven for current and former bureaucrats and those who make their living off the federal contracting teat. Leesburg, the county seat, is trending artsy these days, a kind of St. Michael's, Maryland without the water. During a recent visit to Leesburg, Dr. Potomac passed a late-night palm-reading/blue-grass music joint right in the middle of town. He thinks this an ill omen in terms of Loudon's cultural and political future.
The scale of Democrat Mark Herring's victory is impressive as he garnered almost 70 percent of the vote over Mick Staton, a Republican county supervisor. The main issues in the race were the pace of development and traffic congestion -- not too suprising given the growing pains of the outer suburbs. The underlying problem for the Republican was undoubtedly that virtually no one was paying attention to a Statehouse by-election at the end of January. That's all well and good, but why not? Dr. Potomac thinks something deeper is at work here. After two very intense, "national security" elections and the grinding war in Iraq, he fears the base may be in a state of semi-exhaustion. And, while he appreciates Karl Rove's recent framing of the 2006 mid-term elections in national security terms, he wonders how much juice is actually in that issue right now. The trends don't look good this morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)