Friday, December 28, 2007

Redistricting: A preview

New estimates on population from the U.S. Census give a sense of where we may be after the 2010 Census. One of the most important aspects of the Census every ten years is the congressional reapportionment. Apportionment is the distribution of congressional seats to states based on their population. Each state, regardless of whether they lose, gain, or maintain their seats, must go through redistricting: redrawing the congressional district lines to have equal populations in each district. This will all happen for the 2012 elections.

Generally, it appears congressional seats (and electoral college votes) will shift from the Midwest and rust belt to the West. Southern states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida may continue to gain seats too. California, for the first time in its history may not gain a single seat, or even lose a few. The shift to these states also corresponds to growing competitiveness. The next presidential election, and more likely in subsequent elections, will have new swing states in Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and maybe even Arizona. Florida will remain competitive and North Carolina and Virginia may be bona fide swing states within the next decade.

Minnesota may very well lose a congressional seat, going from 8 to 7. Because most of the population growth in Minnesota has been in the outer suburbs and exurbs, the district boundaries will most likely shift towards that large donut around the Twin Cities. The Greater Minnesota districts of 1, 7 and 8 will get geographically larger by taking territory out of the current 2nd and 6th (and possibly the 3rd). The urban 4th and 5th districts will have to be collapsed together or expanded outward dramatically.
Option 1 would be to create a single urban district made of Minneapolis and St. Paul and a little slice of suburbs. The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th "inner" boundaries wouldn't shift dramatically in this scenario. Using the district numbers of the current districts (missing the 4th) would look as follows:
  • 1st: Taking territory from the 2nd probably won't shift this district very dramatically from a political standpoint. It may become slightly more Republican. It will remain a competitive district.
  • 2nd: Losing some Republican voters in the southern, more rural parts of the district will make this Republican-leaning district more competitive.
  • 3rd: Losing some western or northern territory to the 6th will mean this Republican-leaning district will become slightly more competitive as well.
  • 4th and 5th merged: The single urban district would be overwhelmingly Democrat. A district where the Green candidate would get more than the Republican. Still, highly unlikely for the Greens to make a real run at it.
  • 6th: The conservative district may lose some more conservative areas to the 7th and/or 8th districts, replacing some of the voters with slightly less conservative voters in the current 3rd district and a few liberal voters from the current 4th. It will be more competitive as well, but still one that favors a conservative Republican.
  • 7th: Will become more conservative and Republican and be a competitive district once the incumbent, conservative Democrat retires.
  • 8th: Also will become more conservative and Republican, but will remain a Democratic-leaning district.
Option 2 would not merge the 4th and 5th districts, but instead have the two urban districts expand into the current 2nd, 3rd, and 6th. Both districts would have a majority of suburban voters. This might scare some Democrats, but the 5th would remain Democratic because it would be adding mostly Democratic suburbs from the 3rd. The 4th would be shifted more dramatically with more conservative voters from the 2nd and 6th districts, but would still be a strong Democratic district. In this scenario, the current 3rd is what would probably disappear, giving its territory to the 5th, 6th, and 2nd districts. The breakdown:
  • 1st: Same as Option 1. Competitive.
  • 2nd: Similar to Option 1. Will offset some voters lost to the 1st with voters in the southern part of the 3rd. Little change.
  • 3rd: Eliminated
  • 4th: As stated above, would be a majority-suburban district. More conservative depending on whether new voters from the 2nd or 6th. But still a Dem seat.
  • 5th: Near parity between urban and suburban voters, but the most Dem seat in the state.
  • 6th: Like in Option 1, the conservative district may lose some more conservative areas to the 7th and/or 8th districts, but would also shed more liberal voters to the 4th. New voters from the 3rd lean slightly Republican. The district would remain a Republican-leaning district.
  • 7th: Same as Option 1. Competitive, Dem-leaning.
  • 8th: Same as Option 1. Dem-leaning.
Of course, the maps can be drawn in a million ways. These are two ways that do the most to preserve the current boundaries. The big question is what will happen to the urban voters? Republicans may be inclined to "pack" the liberal, urban voters into a single urban district, but they face having liberal inner-ring suburban voters left over, making the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th competitive. Democrats may wish to keep the urban districts "cracked" into separate districts, giving them two certain seats, but giving the Republicans better chances with the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th.

The devil is in the details. In Option 1, the 6th could "pack" it's Dem-leaning voters around St. Cloud to the 8th, giving it freedom to give Rep voters to the 2nd to shore it up. In Option 2, if the 4th's new voters come from the Dem areas of the 2nd instead of the 6th, it would allow the 2nd to replace them with Republican voters from the 6th or possibly the 1st.

Politicians always want to hedge their bets. It's possible Republican and DFL legislators could agree on a compromise map that maintains the 4th and 5th districts, and eliminates the now competitive 3rd. This would be largely an incumbent-protection map (except for whoever then serves the 3rd, who would face stiff odds no mater who's district they were now drawn into).

Last time around, the courts decided the Minnesota districts because the Legislature failed to do their job. I am aware of only one state that passed a legislative compromise map. It was Wisconsin, who also lost a seat and ended up drawing an incumbent-protection map.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Presidential Predictions

I do enjoy making political predictions, but can't claim to have a great track record. I think I somewhat accurately called the results of the 2006 election, and I knew (like everyone else) that 2004 was going to be a close one. I also remember confidently declaring a few days before the 2002 election that Tim Pawlenty would come in third in the three-way gubernatorial race in Minnesota. Gov. Pawlenty is currently serving is second term.

I was all but avoiding the presidential politics up to just a couple of months ago. Not having poured over polling data or anything like that, I still have suspicions on how the race is going to go based on my appraisal of the candidates, conventional wisdom, and gut feeling.

How I think the Iowa Caucuses are going to go down on January 3rd:

DEMOCRATS
Clinton will win the Iowa caucus. Her name recognition, near-solid campaigning, and ability to deal with the electability question will get her to the top. Obama and Edwards will trail in the 5-15 point range, with Obama squeaking into second place. Even if I'm off by a bit here, it will all likely remain a three-way race after Iowa. My guess is that all other Democrat candidates besides these three (and Kucinich and other fringe candidates) will drop out before February 1st. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will all stay in the race into February at least.

That being said, I can't see Edwards winning the nomination. I think he'll have an impact on the contest between Clinton and Obama. Already, he and Obama are splitting the anti-Clinton vote (whatever amount of the Democratic electorate that is). Endorsements usually don't mean much, but an endorsement from Edwards could make a difference at a key moment in the race.

Early on, I thought Richardson would do better than he has. He might be a good running mate pick. A Latino, western governor with foreign policy experience is a good combination for either Clinton or Obama. Though the Dems may be skittish if it looks like the Republicans are going to make this race about immigration since they have no other issues.

REPUBLICANS
The polls say Huckabee. And maybe they're right. He may win Iowa, but he's not going anywhere beyond that. As has been the conventional wisdom the last few months, the contest for the Republican nomination is between Giuliani and Romney. McCain has new strength in his campaign and may very well be a contender again, which certainly surprises me. Quick question: Who has bent over backward the most to appease leaders of the religious right: Romney, McCain or Giuliani?

So, I think Huckabee is the most likely winner in Iowa. Romney will be second by a range within 15 points of Huckabee and McCain will trail as a close third. Giuliani will come in fourth. If McCain comes close to Romney (say, within 5 points), that will boost him significantly in New Hampshire. All four of these candidates will stay in the race after Iowa, but Huckabee will be the first to bow out after a presumed poor showing in New Hampshire (and South Carolina if he gets that far).

I've long said that I couldn't see Rudy Giuliani getting the nomination. Not only does he have the wrong positions, the wrong constituencies, and personal skeletons in his closet, he is a thoroughly unlikable guy. That being said, I'm surprised he's made it this far, and he'll stay in the race into February unless he does horrible in New Hampshire by coming in a distant fourth place or worse.

Romney is still the most likely Republican nominee. I guess McCain isn't out of the picture though. Huckabee might be a reasonable running mate pick for a nominee needing to shore up cred with the religious right.

There you have it. I'll be out of touch next week right after the caucus, but will return to the subject at some point to see how right or wrong I am.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Beer

A silly video I stumbled upon. The song is by the wonderful They Might Be Giants. It's possible they're being sarcastic at times in this song.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Packers drop the ball, literally

Facing the second to last game of the regular season, the Packers were just one game behind the Dallas Cowboys in gaining home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Football fans may know that the Packers do have a history of successful home games in Green Bay during the cold season. Unfortunately, the Cowboys won the previous night. Still, if the Packers could win their final two games against mediocre opponents and the Cowboys lost their final game, the Packers would be on top. With the Cowboys diminished playing recently, this was a very plausible scenario.

And during one of their best seasons ever, the Packers played one of their worst games. Besides losing the chance for home field advantage, Packer fans also were saddened by the embarrassing loss to the Chicago Bears of all teams.

The final score was 35-7. Favre threw for a mere 153 yards (and only 9 in the first half). He threw 2 interceptions (one run in for a touchdown). Two punts were blocked (one run in for a touchdown). And the Packers generally couldn't hold on to the ball at all.

Sure it was cold. It was 16 degrees with snow falling and wind gusts exceeding 40 mph. It looked like a difficult game. Still, it's an ominous sign for Packers fans hopeful for a Super Bowl appearance.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Minnesota needs a new transportation commissioner

Before the bridge collapse, there was much to criticize in the performance of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's management. Whether it was bungling up vital road projects, poor communication on traffic control, or putting private license driver information on unsecured servers, it has been a mess during the Pawlenty administration.

Lt. Gov Carol Molneau, who also serves as the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has not shined in the the aftermath of the bridge collapse. Her staff member for coordinating emergency responses had to be fired for essentially not doing her job for the last few years. She has been ill-informed on the bridge collapse aftermath. She essentially told Minneapolis to go to hell when it suggested the new bridge design include light-rail transit capability. Two of the losing new bridge design bidders sued the DOT after they chose the MOST expensive design, previously telling the vendors that the cheapest route was the way to go. While underwater searches were still underway, she appeared at a press conference with a nautical-themed shirt. Oh, and though the investigation of the reason for the bridge collapse is still underway, it appears the DOT bears some responsibility to poor and ultimately dangerous decisions in their response to known structural problems.

The Star Tribune has recovered her work schedule for the past three months and wrote about it's contents, or lack there of. It suggests, at minimum, the commissioner is not really involved in a lot of decision making. Worse, it appears that the commissioner may not be really doing much work at all.
Several prominent DFLers in the Legislature have called for her resignation from the DOT. Molneau and her boss, Gov. Pawlenty, have stood firm. The governor remains popular, but that didn't stop the Legislature from (wisely) firing his Education Commissioner.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Quote of the Moment: Clinton (Bill)

ABC reporter Jake Tapper quotes Bill Clinton being interviewed by Charlie Rose, talking about Barack Obama. Clinton said regarding Obama's supporters:
"[as thinking] we're willing to risk it ... we're prepared to roll the dice."
Tapper recalls a similar quote in 1992 from George Bush campaign adviser, Robert Black: "This is not a time to gamble with our future. Electing Bill Clinton president would be rolling the dice."

Tapper is a decent journalist who has been with ABC for a while. I much preferred when he wrote for Salon.com. He's a much better writer than a television reporter. It's nice he has a blog at least (along with everyone else under the sun).

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Monty Python Moment

Greeks vs. Germans

Best line: "And Marx is claiming it was offsides."

DC can't get no respect

Inserted among a million other things in Congress' giant omnibus spending bill is a measure that will add minted quarters to feature Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and the District of Columbia. By next year, all 50 states will have a special quarter with their state featured minted. The District of Columbia and U.S. territories were not included in the original program passed by Congress in the 1990s.

Locals in the District of Columbia are excited to get a little bit of respect. Often people in western states complain about being pushed around by the federal government. But truly, the people living in our nation's capital are the ones with a darn good reason to complain. Congress foists itself on every local issue (school vouchers, needle exchange programs, the public hospital, gun control). Their budget can be tampered by Congress and they don't have a single vote in Congress. More people live in the District than in Wyoming, which incidentally has one Representative and two Senators serving their interests. An effort to grant the District a single Representative in the House (but not the Senate) narrowly missed out this year.

So, before the bill is signed, locals are apparently talking about what should go on the quarter. Several in a Washington Post article echew placing any federal landmarks like the Capitol or Washington Monument. But then what should they put on it? Those who have spent time in DC will probably find humor in the suggestions to put Ben's Chili Bowl (a great place near the U Street Metro stop) or the motto "Taxation Without Representation." The quarter would be issued in 2009.

So congratulations to Washington, DC for getting a little overdue respect. Now if only we could get off our butts and give them statehood.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Time Person of the Year: A Tsar is Born

Time magazine announced their "Person of the Year" in the current issue: "departing" Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The flowery, longish piece doesn't necessarily go into depth. But that is the nature of the mass audience weekly that Time magazine is. It's worth a read though.

In the first paragraph, Time reporter Adi Ignatius begins to paint a picture of the "new tsar":
"No one is born with a stare like Vladimir Putin's. The Russian President's pale blue eyes are so cool, so devoid of emotion that the stare must have begun as an affect, the gesture of someone who understood that power might be achieved by the suppression of ordinary needs, like blinking."
It's a very different description than one would attribute to our president, who also has a spooky stare. Bush's stare involves lots of blinking and is more of the deer-caught-in-the-headlights variety.

A running theme of the piece is the conventional wisdom that Russia's economic and diplomatic resurgence is related to Putin's authoritarianism. My impression is that is the conventional wisdom within Russia as well. But I wonder if it really does bear out. Certainly, Putin has slid closer and closer to totalitarianism. A recent potential political opponent had to withdraw from the presidential election because the government had successfully prevented his nomination convention from occurring in time.

Yes, the political opposition in Russia apparently doesn't have their act together. But it can't help that Putin's government jails press and opponents and controls all the institutions. And I don't know how much allegedly following those who are vocal to other countries and murdering them with radioactive poison can be linked to economic success of Russia in recent years.

Though, I'm only a casual, ill-informed American and don't really have an idea what is the real story in Russia. I'd be interested to hear from those who know better than I.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Why dogs are Democrats

(Does this mean cats are Republicans?)

As has been noted all over the place, there have been some stories dealing with the maltreatment of dogs linked to the Republican presidential candidate frontrunners.

Rudy Guiliani's wife, Judith, apparently demonstrated the application of medical staples on dogs that were then euthanized in sales pitches for the U.S. Surgical Corporation. This was about 30 years ago.

Mitt Romney is apparently proud of the piece of family lore, when he stuck his dog in a carrier on top of his car on 12-hour family trips to Canada. On one such occasion, the poor dog lost control of his bowels on the window. Mitt Romney calmly pulled over, borrowed a hose, sprayed down the car and dog, and continued on as before. Says the Boston Globe which published this story earlier in the year: "It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management." Emotion-free, yes. But I think dogs in particular would draw additional conclusions from this story. (Interestingly, Romney is becoming more "emotional" on the campaign trail; tearing up on occasion.)

And most recently, Newsweek has dug up the story previously reported in Arkansas press, that Mike Huckabee's then 17 year-old son, David, was fired from his position as a Boy Scout camp counselor for violating the Scout Law to be "kind." Allegedly, David and another counselor who was also fired, led a group of campers to torture and eventually kill by hanging and/or stabbing a stray dog that had come on to the camp. The grisly details are disputed, and ultimately, David was never charged with animal cruelty.

What reflects even worse on the candidate Mike Huckabee, is the allegation that members of the governor's staff pressured the director of the state police to decline the request to investigate the incident. The director was eventually asked to resign. He claims Gov. Huckabee told him one of the reasons for his requested resignation was: "I couldn't get you to help me with my son when I had that problem."

These are stories that have surfaced regarding the three current front-runners. One wonders what other dog cruelty shows up with the other Republican candidates and their families. It would be hard to see the anti-torture John McCain with any dog skeletons in his closet though.

Voters of course should come to their own conclusions on if and how any of these stories should impact their votes. I'm not voting in the Republican primary, so I don't have to worry about that yet. I would say, personally, that the story around Mitt Romney does have an impact on how I would view his character. I think the press needs to investigate the allegations of Huckabee personally interfering with criminal investigation to protect his son.

I don't think the story of what his current wife did 30 years ago should matter in Rudy Giuliani's case. What worries me more about Giuliani is his virtual enthusiasm when it comes to torturing humans. Giuliani is beyond the arguments of whether "harsh interrogation techniques" protect the nation. He thinks it's funny, suggesting that sleep deprivation torture is just like running for president. Ha ha. Giuliani, like the rest of the GOP candidates save McCain, has no problem with waterboarding, the act of suffocating a person underwater, but stopping short of killing them.

So, my absurd assertion from all this is that all dogs are Democrats, Greens, or independents. (Dogs are too dependent to be Libertarian.) Well, maybe Dogbert is a Republican.

The eco-friendly Christmas tree

Slate.com runs a piece on what is the best choice for the environmental-conscious consumer when it comes to Christmas trees. They look mainly at what materials are made in production and the amount of petroleum needed to transport trees. In their view, real trees narrowly edge out artificial trees. Of course, no trees or potted trees would be even better options.

For the last several years, we've gotten "sustainable" trees from the co-op. The trees are grown on a family farm just across the border in Iowa, near Decorah. (A couple hours' drive.) "Sustainable" in this context means no fertilizer and no mowing around the trees. This farm, as well as most tree farms, are sustainable in so much that they are renewable. Cut trees are replaced with newly planted trees.

Also, the article notes that if you live in San Fransisco, you can rent a potted Christmas tree that will be retrieved after the holidays.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Friday, December 14, 2007

Choice quotes

I listened to much of the Democrat Presidential debate yesterday. Two of my favorite remarks...

1. From Sen. Obama, when asked his priorities for his first year in office. The first was to order the Joint Chiefs to draw up a plan for, " in a responsible, careful way" withdrawing troops from Iraq. Number three was for a plan to extend health care coverage to all Americans. My favorite part:
"Number two, I'll call in my new attorney general to review every single executive order that's been issued by George Bush. And any of those that have undermined our Constitution or subverted our civil liberties are going to be reversed."
2. Sen. Clinton answered the same question and mirrored Obama's remarks. But my favorite part is emphasized below:
"I will review every executive order, rescind those that undermine the Constitution and betray the rule of law, and issue some, like, for example, not interfering with science and ending Bush's war on science."
Clinton also said she'd ask Congress to quickly resend her the bills Bush vetoed: stem cell research funding and children's health insurance program.

Community helpers

Meredith has been learning about "community helpers" at school. People like doctors, teachers, firefighters, and police officers.

Today's Star Tribune takes a look at an unnamed community helper who didn't seem to live up to the "helper" part of "community helper." The column, by Nick Coleman, is called Minneapolis cop dug a hole for himself in shovel dustup. I'm generally not a fan of Coleman's writing, but this piece does make you shake your head.

The general story is that a woman was trying to help dig out a bus stuck in the snow, full of people from the casino, at midnight. She spotted a shovel leaning against the police station and asked to borrow it for 15 minutes. The response she got was not so much in the "helpful department." The incident culminates with a citation and court date.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Profiles of offensiveness: ESPN.com

ESPN reportedly placed a readers' poll on their website last week with the following question:

What would you rather see?
  • The Steelers beat the Patriots.
  • Twins star Johan Santana be traded to a team other than the Red Sox.
  • Kevin Garnett blow out his knee.

According to the Star Tribune, arbiters of good taste, the poll was gone by late Friday and ESPN put out a statement apologizing. They acknowledged using "poor judgment" with the question wishing a star athlete to blow out their knee, stating: "Obviously, we wish good health to all athletes."

Well, based on that question, I don't think it is obvious, but more of an open question.

Wishing a painful injury on anyone is twisted, much less someone who relies on their good health for their career. Even if the Packers make it all the way to the Super Bowl, I wouldn't wish Randy Moss of the Patriots an injury. This is despite my loathing of Mr. Moss, the New England Patriots, and the city of Boston.

And speaking of Boston, the above poll didn't give any good choices to fans of the Boston teams (New England Patriots, Boston Red Sox, and Boston Celtics respectively). I guess it was a topical question or something. Maybe it should have been "Which professional sports team in Boston do you loath the most?" As perfectly as they are playing this year, my pick would be the Patriots. But I do wish good health on all their players. I also wish that Tom Brady start throwing some bad interceptions. Hopefully, that's not too mean spirited.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Quote of the moment: Cuban Missile Crisis

Last week White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was asked about a comparison Vladimir Putin made between the current effort towards a European missile shield and the Cuban missile crisis. She did the job of the White House press secretary and stalled and gave a non-answer answer.

Then as a guest on NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, Dana Perino admitted she stalled because she didn't understand the reference.
"I really know nothing about the Cuban missile crisis. It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure."
As a history junkie, I often am surprised at what intelligent people don't know about history. But really is it too much to expect the White House press secretary, who has spent a career in politics and journalism to know at least the outlines of the Cuban missile crisis? According to her Wikipedia profile, Perino was born 10 years after this event--but still. At some point in high school history didn't she have a test with a fill in the blank question to the effect of Q. ___________________ (3 words) occurred in 1962 in the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union after spy planes discovered nuclear missiles being built in a Caribbean nation within striking distance of the United States.

(Thanks to Salon.com's War Room blog for this quote.)

Sunday, December 9, 2007

"Cute" headlines

It's a long standing tradition for newspapers to be clever with their headlines. I often bristle when they go too far into groaner territory--a frequent occurrance.

The Twin Cities Star Tribune is guilty of this trend as any other. Sometimes, their headlines cross from the lame territory to the offensive. This happens when their tongue-in-cheek headline seems to make light of a horrible situation.

Today's example comes from the disturbing random murders in Colorado of young people at a Christian missionary training campus. One victim was a Minnesota native. So, the illustrious Star Tribune puts the headline of the top lead of its website as Victims didn't have a prayer of a chance.

It appears as I am writing this, that they have changed the headline to 2 Colorado shootings, same gunman? Maybe an editor thought better. We'll see what goes in the hard copy tonight. In any case, I think it's a little sickening that someone at the Star Tribune would publish that headline in the first place.

Friday, December 7, 2007

Google supports alternative energy development

It seems like once a week we learn another way that Google is going to revolutionize the world. Whether it's making grants for the development of private space travel or supposedly taking over the cell phone market, their ambition is unconstrained.

One of the latest bits from Google is their goal to develop mass-scale alternative energy production that is cheaper than coal. Google's press release quotes
Larry Page, Google co-founder and President of Products:

"Our goal is to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal. We are optimistic this can be done in years, not decades." (One gigawatt can power a city the size of San Francisco.)
Google will initially focus on solar thermal, wind power, and geothermal energy technologies. They will not be going at it alone, but hope to work with many partners. They are simply going to set the goal, pour "tens of millions" of dollars a year, and take some credit should they succeed.

I'm no expert on alternative energy technologies, but it sounds like a difficult goal in a short timeframe. A worthy goal all the same, I suppose. Imagine if they were able to develop one or a combination of the alternative energy sources into a large scale system that was cheaper than coal? Their focus is on technologies that can be replicated around the world. I was under the impression that geothermal energy is not a great possibility except for a small number of locals around the world. Then again, I'm not an expert on this stuff.

Last week,
Bill Weihl, Google's "alternative energy czar," was interviewed on NPR's Science Friday



Thursday, December 6, 2007

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Quote of the moment: Hillary Clinton

This quote about Hillary comes from Matt Taibbi, in his current Rollingstone article "The Battle for Iowa:"

"In person, Hillary sometimes comes across as a caricature of the modern career woman who's had to go too far to prove that she's tough enough to hang."
What do you think; fair or not?

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Quote of the day: I hope he's lying

Update: It looks like I'm not the only one to find Bush's insistence of being ignorant on an important matter troubling. Salon.com's War Room blog asks:

What's worse -- the idea that George W. Bush continued to ratchet up his rhetoric on Iran after he was told in August or September that Iran may have halted its nuclear weapon program, or the idea that Bush was told then only that there was some kind of "new information" on Iran and didn't bother asking what that information might be?

The top story in the news today is the Bush administration's acknowledgment that Iran is not actively putting together nuclear weapons and Bush's press conference this morning. The national intelligence estimate (NIE) on Iran had been long delayed, presumably due to internal arguments over it's conclusions.

At the press conference this morning, Bush was asked why he was continuing the war-mongering remarks at Iran just weeks ago, as the NIE was being finalized. His response was he didn't know about the conclusion regarding Iran's not actively seeking nuclear weapons until last week. Another reporter followed up:

Q Mr. President, thank you. Just to follow, I understand what you're saying about when you were informed about the NIE. Are you saying at no point while the rhetoric was escalating, as "World War III" was making it into conversation, at no point nobody from your intelligence team or your administration was saying, maybe you want to back it down a little bit?

THE PRESIDENT: No, nobody ever told me that. Having said -- having laid that out, I still feel strongly that Iran is a danger. Nothing has changed in this NIE that says, okay, why don't we just stop worrying about it. Quite the contrary. I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn't changed.
This is a spectacular remark on so many fronts. The continuing insistence in light of evidence from his own administration shouldn't surprise anyone, but troubling all the same.

But what I think is most spectacular is the "No, nobody ever told me that." Huh? I hope and believe that he is lying here. As the intelligence community has been undoubtedly debating the conclusion regarding Iran's lack of a nuclear weapons program for many months, if not years. This isn't some random country we're talking about. This has been one of the big diplomatic focuses of this administration. And he just heard of this conclusion last week?

Certainly, it's not hard to believe that this president would lie to cover up another lie. "No, I really didn't know that the intelligence community is confident Iran hasn't been seeking nuclear weapons for four years when I was saying we were going to get into World War III." It kind of looks bad.

But, couldn't one say it looks worse that our president (and the rest of the administration) was pursuing a key foreign policy track based on incredibly false assumptions? (Hmmm, sounds familiar...) Oh wait, this incredible reversal from the intelligence community doesn't change a thing. He tells us right away, "My opinion hasn't changed." We can't let pesky facts get in our way. Especially when they may interfere with war and the threat of war.

Monday, December 3, 2007

Totalitarianism Today

Today, in the totalitarianism versus democracy match, we have a tie with single victories each.

From the article:

President Hugo Chavez suffered a stinging defeat in a vote on constitutional changes that would have let him run for re-election indefinitely, the chief of National Electoral Council said Monday.

From the article:

"Our result shows that voters gave their support not only to United Russia, but also to the course set by Vladimir Putin," Boris Gryzlov, speaker of the outgoing Duma and the head of United Russia, said on Russian television. "The elections were a referendum on Putin, and we can say he has won the first round."

Although 60 percent represents a major victory, it was still less than some in United Russia had expected and may leave the party with only marginally more seats in the next 450-seat parliament, according to early projections. But that would still be enough to change the constitution at will.

The presidential election will be held March 2, and the candidate Putin endorses is expected to sweep to victory. But the winner's power is likely to be constrained by Putin's enduring influence. Putin is constitutionally barred from serving three consecutive terms, but he could return in 2012, or sooner if the next president were to resign early. He has not said what role he will assume next year or whether he will seek to return to the presidency.