He didn't have a hand for 30 years, but now he does.
"It's like closing down your house for 32 years, then deciding to go back in and take a shower. You turn it on, it sputters a little bit, then it works," the man, David F. Savage from Michigan, said. I imagine Savage is hoping that the hand continues to function well, but "If it stops working, we'll go back in there and get it started again," he said.
This is the third time a man has received a new hand in the United States.
Why Do You Hate Her So Much?
Here's more evidence that, as I have been arguing for a long time (ahem), Hillary Clinton will not be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008. I think it will be Obama, and when he runs, he will clear the field.
But nevertheless, since I just can't let this go: I'd love to know why conservatives dislike Hillary Clinton as much as they do. I don't understand why she's so polarizing. Her policy positions are uniformly moderate, she has alienated the left wing of the Democratic Party, she is an intelligent and highly qualified leader, and she is a very popular Senator in New York, even in Republican-leaning districts upstate. So what is it about her that arouses such antipathy?
Just thinking of the Republicans who inspire some kind of knee-jerk, irrationally hostile response in my own mind, I think of James Inhofe, Bill Frist, Jim Bunning, Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, etc. (Obviously I could go on and on) These guys? Hard-core right-wing types all -- I actually have quite favorable responses to the few remaining Republican moderates.
Is it a personality thing?
Calling all conservatives! Tell me what you think.
But nevertheless, since I just can't let this go: I'd love to know why conservatives dislike Hillary Clinton as much as they do. I don't understand why she's so polarizing. Her policy positions are uniformly moderate, she has alienated the left wing of the Democratic Party, she is an intelligent and highly qualified leader, and she is a very popular Senator in New York, even in Republican-leaning districts upstate. So what is it about her that arouses such antipathy?
Just thinking of the Republicans who inspire some kind of knee-jerk, irrationally hostile response in my own mind, I think of James Inhofe, Bill Frist, Jim Bunning, Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, etc. (Obviously I could go on and on) These guys? Hard-core right-wing types all -- I actually have quite favorable responses to the few remaining Republican moderates.
Is it a personality thing?
Calling all conservatives! Tell me what you think.
In all fairness...
Frankly, I think this one is blowing up a bit. According to CNN tonight, transcript runs something more similar to this:
Bush: How's your boy?
Webb: I want him to come out of Iraq
Bush: I didn't ask you that, I asked you how he's doing.
Now, I suck at remembering exact quotes, but that's pretty close to the quotes from CNN. If I was Bush I probably would have said the exact same thing. I think the previous post was a little hard, he asked a legitimate question and got crap back for it. Now, Is Bushy boy the most eloquent and intelligent leader? I doubt it. But I think this is a bit asinine to blow up over him for.
Bush: How's your boy?
Webb: I want him to come out of Iraq
Bush: I didn't ask you that, I asked you how he's doing.
Now, I suck at remembering exact quotes, but that's pretty close to the quotes from CNN. If I was Bush I probably would have said the exact same thing. I think the previous post was a little hard, he asked a legitimate question and got crap back for it. Now, Is Bushy boy the most eloquent and intelligent leader? I doubt it. But I think this is a bit asinine to blow up over him for.
Bush is such a worm
If this is true, it really helps to reinforce my feelings that not only is Bush a dumb, dumb man, but at his core, he is a repulsive and worthless human being. He "supports the troops" and wants to "know how they're doing" but he doesn't actually want to know how they're doing. This is why I feel so strongly that decisions of war and peace should not be left up to a slimeball like Bush who has nothing personally at stake in this sacrifice. I'd like to see how those little Bush twins would be holding up if they were shipped over to Fallujah.
By the way, this also shows what a little bitch Bush is. I think his response was ignorant and typical, but also classic Bush cowardice in the face of a legitimate debate. No teleprompter or staged remarks to guide him through that one.
By the way, this also shows what a little bitch Bush is. I think his response was ignorant and typical, but also classic Bush cowardice in the face of a legitimate debate. No teleprompter or staged remarks to guide him through that one.
GOP fiscal cowardice
While studying for my upcoming U.S. Congress test, I came across a particularly insightful passage in Congress and Its Members by Roger H. Davidson dealing with presidential-congressional relations. The section discusses presidents using bill-signing ceremonies to reward supporters and send messages. I thought Bush's public relations strategy of what policies to publicize was interesting -- in this case, revealing the GOP's fiscal cowardice:
"Bush signed a bill dealing with corporate corruption on a table adorned with a sign saying 'Corporate Responsibility,' a technique used by the White House image-makers to associate the president's picture with the gist of his message. Occasions did arise when bills were signed in virtual secrecy, such as a 2003 measure raising the federal debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion. On the day he quietly signed that bill into law, Bush held a public bill-signing ceremony for his $350 billion tax-cut measure."
The government estimated in 2000 that it would run a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. Bush sent a ten-year $1.6 trillion tax cut plan to Congress and said, "we recognize loud and clear the surplus is not the government's money -- the surplus is the people's money, and we ought to trust them with their own money." Once the economy slipped into a recession, Bush's rationale for continuing the tax cuts changed. It became essential to stimulating the economy -- classic trickle down theory Reaganomics.
This fiscal attitude dominates the administration's thinking on social safety net programs. It's so revealing that Bush and the Republicans' number one agenda after the 2004 elections was to "fix" Social Security, preaching fiscal discipline and long-term planning, allegedly to avert a crisis. The propositions were designed to bankrupt the program, draining money out of it by investing in private accounts instead of improving its solvency. Social Security is currently in a massive surplus and is in no immediate need of repeair. Whatever imbalance arises in at least a decade from the approaching baby boom retirement have practical and sensible solutions to make sure it continues to do its job -- for example, continuing to tax beyond the $90,000 cap.
Meanwhile, there were two institutions that were in crisis while Bush was preoccupied with destroying Social Security -- health care and the federal government. At a minimum of ten years from now, Social Security might possibly be paying out more than it's taking in, but at this very moment at least 40 million Americans have no health insurance. The federal budget deficit is $8.5 trillion. There's something a little wrong with that picture.
Republicans don't want to discuss real problems. They don't want to fix the most popular New Deal social safety net program. They don't care about the economic repercussions their fiscal policies could have on the next generation. They are not committed to the average American having a decent standard of living. Their ideological goal is to stuff the pockets of the rich and create a tiny minority of the population that controls the majority of the nation's wealth. All the while, they realize how unpopular their priorities are so they have to conceal their true meaning from the public. They "fix" things when they're breaking them, shrug their shoulders as the ground beneath society crumbles, behave like an 18 year-old girl with her first credit card at American Eagle, and are ashamed to come clean with their real agenda, signing their disastrous bills into law behind closed doors. Their cowardice never ceases to amaze me.
"Bush signed a bill dealing with corporate corruption on a table adorned with a sign saying 'Corporate Responsibility,' a technique used by the White House image-makers to associate the president's picture with the gist of his message. Occasions did arise when bills were signed in virtual secrecy, such as a 2003 measure raising the federal debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion. On the day he quietly signed that bill into law, Bush held a public bill-signing ceremony for his $350 billion tax-cut measure."
The government estimated in 2000 that it would run a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next decade. Bush sent a ten-year $1.6 trillion tax cut plan to Congress and said, "we recognize loud and clear the surplus is not the government's money -- the surplus is the people's money, and we ought to trust them with their own money." Once the economy slipped into a recession, Bush's rationale for continuing the tax cuts changed. It became essential to stimulating the economy -- classic trickle down theory Reaganomics.
This fiscal attitude dominates the administration's thinking on social safety net programs. It's so revealing that Bush and the Republicans' number one agenda after the 2004 elections was to "fix" Social Security, preaching fiscal discipline and long-term planning, allegedly to avert a crisis. The propositions were designed to bankrupt the program, draining money out of it by investing in private accounts instead of improving its solvency. Social Security is currently in a massive surplus and is in no immediate need of repeair. Whatever imbalance arises in at least a decade from the approaching baby boom retirement have practical and sensible solutions to make sure it continues to do its job -- for example, continuing to tax beyond the $90,000 cap.
Meanwhile, there were two institutions that were in crisis while Bush was preoccupied with destroying Social Security -- health care and the federal government. At a minimum of ten years from now, Social Security might possibly be paying out more than it's taking in, but at this very moment at least 40 million Americans have no health insurance. The federal budget deficit is $8.5 trillion. There's something a little wrong with that picture.
Republicans don't want to discuss real problems. They don't want to fix the most popular New Deal social safety net program. They don't care about the economic repercussions their fiscal policies could have on the next generation. They are not committed to the average American having a decent standard of living. Their ideological goal is to stuff the pockets of the rich and create a tiny minority of the population that controls the majority of the nation's wealth. All the while, they realize how unpopular their priorities are so they have to conceal their true meaning from the public. They "fix" things when they're breaking them, shrug their shoulders as the ground beneath society crumbles, behave like an 18 year-old girl with her first credit card at American Eagle, and are ashamed to come clean with their real agenda, signing their disastrous bills into law behind closed doors. Their cowardice never ceases to amaze me.
the inevitable slaughter
Bush says talk of civil war in Iraq is "all kinds of speculation." Actually, no, George Bush. When different groups organize themselves along sectarian lines, locate large quantities of the rival faction, explode bombs indiscriminantly killing 200 of them, then the side that just got killed locates random members of the faction that did the killing, pours kerosene on them and burns them to death -- it's a civil war. Furthermore, when the two groups engage in violence of this nature on a daily basis, it is no longer "speculation."
Bush has officially returned to the familiar, tired, and pathetic rhetoric of "stay the course." We knew the reconciliatory babble following the election was a fraud, but at least now Democrats and anybody else sensible enough to join them can dig in and return to the constructive task of restricting George Bush's power to fuck things up as much as possible.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I read an article today or yesterday which said the Baker commission will not be recommending a phased troop withdrawal. It's also clear that Democrats in Congress will not use their constitutional authority to cut off funds for the war. Bush has made it clear that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq through his presidency (he will leave office in January 2009) and will not pull them out until we "win." By my projections, this means that a substantial U.S. military presence will remain in Iraq for at least two and a half years -- perhaps it will be scaled down to 70,000 or 80,000 troops as opposed to 150,000 -- but I'd be shocked if reductions beyond that were made.
Since October, 169 troops have been killed in this war. At that clip, 2,400 more U.S. soldiers will die during the Bush presidency. There's absolutely no indication that the violence will abate -- if anything, it appears to be escalating. Who knows how many soldiers will be dead when it's all said and done, but the saddest part is that they all will have died in vain.
Bush has officially returned to the familiar, tired, and pathetic rhetoric of "stay the course." We knew the reconciliatory babble following the election was a fraud, but at least now Democrats and anybody else sensible enough to join them can dig in and return to the constructive task of restricting George Bush's power to fuck things up as much as possible.
I can't find the link at the moment, but I read an article today or yesterday which said the Baker commission will not be recommending a phased troop withdrawal. It's also clear that Democrats in Congress will not use their constitutional authority to cut off funds for the war. Bush has made it clear that U.S. troops will remain in Iraq through his presidency (he will leave office in January 2009) and will not pull them out until we "win." By my projections, this means that a substantial U.S. military presence will remain in Iraq for at least two and a half years -- perhaps it will be scaled down to 70,000 or 80,000 troops as opposed to 150,000 -- but I'd be shocked if reductions beyond that were made.
Since October, 169 troops have been killed in this war. At that clip, 2,400 more U.S. soldiers will die during the Bush presidency. There's absolutely no indication that the violence will abate -- if anything, it appears to be escalating. Who knows how many soldiers will be dead when it's all said and done, but the saddest part is that they all will have died in vain.
More muses on McCain - Lieberman '08
I always wonder why nobody talks more about the role Ralph Nader played in the 2000 presidential election. Or indeed, the role of the third party in recent history.
Back in the eight grade, the cool thing to do was be an anarchist, and therefore the cool party to vote for were the libertarians. In fact, in one mock election, they almost came to power in our classroom but were narrowly defeated by the prissy little baby republicans, and I began to realize as I got older that to vote for anything other than the big two parties was to throw a vote away, if you were going to vote for them, you might as well stay home.
Then came my first real election. We all remember the grim night in 2000 when we learned that in spite of having won the popular vote, Al Gore lost to Dubba because of the votes of 537 Floridians. Not only was it a sad day for America, it was made even sadder because it came down to so many people who live in America's wang.
Yet when the dust settled and the craziness of elections were over, I had an epiphany, I don't know why no major news media picked up upon it, but 97,421 Floridians actually voted for Ralph Nader. If half a percent of those people had voted for the Democratic candidate, instead of trying to make an ultra leftist statement, the outcome of these last eight years would be a different story.
And whilst Ross Perot was perhaps the most entertaining man ever to enter the political ring (if any of you remember the Animaniacs episode featuring the spoof of him, it was perhaps the most brilliant piece of animation in existence), he too was a ringer that torpedoed his own constituency. Now, it is hard to know the impact that good ol Ross took from either side, as he was fairly oddball moderate, but even still, in an election that was won by only 6.6%, taking a full 18.9% had a definitive impact upon the political landscape. If you follow the wikipedia breakdown of the demographics for the third party vote, he took far more votes from the republicans than he had from the Democrats.
The problem with a third party in a two party system, is that ultimately, they serve as nothing more then a spoiler. The more votes they get ultimately is nothing more than a denial of votes for the party that closest represents the ideals of the third party. And if the last recent elections have proven anything, they've proven the power of a third party to elect those who's views are farthest from their own.
If we see a McCain - Lieberman ticket in 08, then we can be assured of doom because it will mean a shoe in for Hilary.
At which point, we're doomed to a fate far worse then Dubbya.
Back in the eight grade, the cool thing to do was be an anarchist, and therefore the cool party to vote for were the libertarians. In fact, in one mock election, they almost came to power in our classroom but were narrowly defeated by the prissy little baby republicans, and I began to realize as I got older that to vote for anything other than the big two parties was to throw a vote away, if you were going to vote for them, you might as well stay home.
Then came my first real election. We all remember the grim night in 2000 when we learned that in spite of having won the popular vote, Al Gore lost to Dubba because of the votes of 537 Floridians. Not only was it a sad day for America, it was made even sadder because it came down to so many people who live in America's wang.
Yet when the dust settled and the craziness of elections were over, I had an epiphany, I don't know why no major news media picked up upon it, but 97,421 Floridians actually voted for Ralph Nader. If half a percent of those people had voted for the Democratic candidate, instead of trying to make an ultra leftist statement, the outcome of these last eight years would be a different story.
And whilst Ross Perot was perhaps the most entertaining man ever to enter the political ring (if any of you remember the Animaniacs episode featuring the spoof of him, it was perhaps the most brilliant piece of animation in existence), he too was a ringer that torpedoed his own constituency. Now, it is hard to know the impact that good ol Ross took from either side, as he was fairly oddball moderate, but even still, in an election that was won by only 6.6%, taking a full 18.9% had a definitive impact upon the political landscape. If you follow the wikipedia breakdown of the demographics for the third party vote, he took far more votes from the republicans than he had from the Democrats.
The problem with a third party in a two party system, is that ultimately, they serve as nothing more then a spoiler. The more votes they get ultimately is nothing more than a denial of votes for the party that closest represents the ideals of the third party. And if the last recent elections have proven anything, they've proven the power of a third party to elect those who's views are farthest from their own.
If we see a McCain - Lieberman ticket in 08, then we can be assured of doom because it will mean a shoe in for Hilary.
At which point, we're doomed to a fate far worse then Dubbya.
My Own Strategy for Iraq
Though this post started as a comment for Joey's post below (well worth a read, btw), I have been mildly heckled by the aformentioned contributor for being a compulsive commenter rather than poster, so here it is, posted independant of the comment box:
I think perhaps the answer in Iraq could be similar to the actions taken in Spain in response to regionalism. Differences in language and ethnicity have caused a similar sentiment amongst Spaniards as what is forming amongst Iraqis now that they have been presented with semi-representative government. The fall of Sadaam in Iraq can be compared with death of Francisco Franco in Spain and following plunge into democracy taken by King Juan Carlos. While Iraqis consider themselves Kurdish, Sunni, or Shia first and Iraqi second, Spaniards consider themselves Andalucian, Navarran, Basque, and Aragonese, etc. first.
What has occured in Spain to answer this dilemma is a system of government in which each region is semi-autonomous and elects its own empowered premier and assembly. The national government, meanwhile, is made up of a Parliament and Prime Minister. While the regional governments control the interests and laws of the region with a very firm grip on social agenda and regional economics, the national government sets national policy and addresses issues that effect Spain in its entirety, including issues of inter-regional relations, national security, foreign policy, and military strategy.
I have done a rather hackwork job of quickly describing this system. A much better analysis can be found here. While I am weary of leaving Iraq to its own devices, I think an extremely pragamatic solution to the political situation in Iraq would be to find a balance of national government with regional semi-autonomy. One would assume it would be significantly easier to first establish stable regional governments, and then allow those regions to then independantly run elections for the national assembly. Perhaps a bicameral body similar to the US Congress in which one house would contain one-third representation from each semi-autonomous region could be formed.
The timeline for an Iraqi government in which regional anxiety would be calmed by semi-autonomy of each ethnic group is far shorter than that of trying to form a national government from scratch. A similar plan to the Spanish transition seems the best solution to me.
I am curious to see if Biden's new report will contain a similar idea of regional independence in Iraq, but my fear is he will ignore the problems with full regional autonomy in Iraq and try to push a flawed agenda through the Foreign Relations commitee.
I think perhaps the answer in Iraq could be similar to the actions taken in Spain in response to regionalism. Differences in language and ethnicity have caused a similar sentiment amongst Spaniards as what is forming amongst Iraqis now that they have been presented with semi-representative government. The fall of Sadaam in Iraq can be compared with death of Francisco Franco in Spain and following plunge into democracy taken by King Juan Carlos. While Iraqis consider themselves Kurdish, Sunni, or Shia first and Iraqi second, Spaniards consider themselves Andalucian, Navarran, Basque, and Aragonese, etc. first.
What has occured in Spain to answer this dilemma is a system of government in which each region is semi-autonomous and elects its own empowered premier and assembly. The national government, meanwhile, is made up of a Parliament and Prime Minister. While the regional governments control the interests and laws of the region with a very firm grip on social agenda and regional economics, the national government sets national policy and addresses issues that effect Spain in its entirety, including issues of inter-regional relations, national security, foreign policy, and military strategy.
I have done a rather hackwork job of quickly describing this system. A much better analysis can be found here. While I am weary of leaving Iraq to its own devices, I think an extremely pragamatic solution to the political situation in Iraq would be to find a balance of national government with regional semi-autonomy. One would assume it would be significantly easier to first establish stable regional governments, and then allow those regions to then independantly run elections for the national assembly. Perhaps a bicameral body similar to the US Congress in which one house would contain one-third representation from each semi-autonomous region could be formed.
The timeline for an Iraqi government in which regional anxiety would be calmed by semi-autonomy of each ethnic group is far shorter than that of trying to form a national government from scratch. A similar plan to the Spanish transition seems the best solution to me.
I am curious to see if Biden's new report will contain a similar idea of regional independence in Iraq, but my fear is he will ignore the problems with full regional autonomy in Iraq and try to push a flawed agenda through the Foreign Relations commitee.
Biden's plan
I'm going to throw out a Friedman Unit of my own here. Biden's proposal sounds like something Iraqis would go for and it might be the only remaining option among a host of bad options to stabilize Iraq. I see a number of flaws in the idea but it seems better than trying to arbitrarily unify three ethnic groups under one flag. As we've discussed in prior posts, there's no logical reason for Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis to be "Iraqis." The borders of Iraq were never decided by the Iraqis -- it was a prize of World War I and its future crafted by the British and the League of Nations. So if a primary goal is to help build a nation in which people have some say as to how they're governed, this can't be expected within a framework the Iraqis never established themselves in the first place.
A number of problems with this proposal immediately come to mind. What would be done with regions of mixed ethnic populations, especially Baghdad? Other cities, like Mosul, contain majority ethnic populations but a dangerous number of minorities still live there. This could be a recipe for regional cleansing operations.
Also, Shi'ites would control the oil in the south, the only resource preventing the country from descending into Somalia-like economic conditions. I'm skeptical Sunnis would tolerate Shia prosperity in the south, especially as they descended into desperate poverty. Also, an emboldened Shia sector would undoubtedly ally with Iran in an effort for regional hegemony and further marginalize and corner the Sunnis.
Another major problem is the fundamental existence of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Once U.S. troops withdrew, Turkish troops would spill over the border and smash any and all attempts of autonomy -- they made this abundantly clear with their vicious "counter-insurgency" in southeastern Turkey in the late '90s. It's inconceivable for them to allow a model independent Kurdish-Iraqi state to embolden their indigenous Kurdish population.
Still, this plan seems better than a Baghdad coalition government trying to get these three to cooperate. U.S. troop withdrawal is still the best option, but if we have to throw out a few more Friedman Units, Biden's plan seems like the best shot.
The Mandrake-Ripper Phenomenon
Last night I sat down with TyGreen and JBish and watched Kubrick's classic Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The way Kubrick, who had recently emigrated to Great Britain, cast the character of Mandrake struck me in a way it hadn't before. He by no means had to make the well-meaning and rational executive officer of the crazed General Ripper a member of the "officer exchange" with the Royal Air Force. Sellers showed in playing President Muffley that he could easily do an American accent.
Why then, make Mandrake British? Think about the post-WWII relationship the United States and Britain have... one could easily say the United States is the brash, ignorant, paranoid, reckless, unilaterally-acting leader in the relationship while Great Britain serves as its trusty ally, following commands but feebly voicing its doubts along the way. Save the Falkland Islands, Great Britain has only shown force when acting along with an American action since WWII. Save the United States' actions within our sphere of influence as defined in the Monroe Doctrine and a few retalitory bombings, Britain has aided us in our post-WWII conflicts, either directly or in official policy.
What I would like to see is the United States becoming a more coherent leader. I understand that often international diplomacy is an excercize in triviality. Global organizations have never enacted lasting peace of any sort - one has to only look at Mussolini's actions in Eithiopia and Japan's expansion into Manchuria to see evidence of this. Lasting peace has usually happened in one of two ways:
- The existence of a superpower who can exert its will upon the entire world (e.g. Pax Romana).
- The existence of two coalitions/alliances of equal strength keeping one another in check (e.g. the period of the Balance of Powers before WWI - Britain/France/Italy and Germany/Russia/Austro-Hungary).
It appears as though for the time being neither of these options are open to us. We have proved the era of the United States as the unquestioned superpower of the world has faded, and even if the EU had not undermined the strength of NATO's bond, it is not a conventional coalition which opposes the United States in today's world. It is largely web of covert organizations.
This presents our nation with a clear dilemma - how do we acquire peace in the current age? In what way can the United States form a coalition capable of keeping peace across the world? Surely the begining to finding an answer is in bringing nations into a level-playing field with ourselves at the diplomatic table and pragmatically finding solutions in questions of global peace. I would enjoy the six-nation talks being in a position to be assertive with North Korea, but the United States' unilateral policy in other parts of the world makes this difficult. One key issue in my vote for President in '08 will be in the area of foreign policy. How will the next Commander-in-Chief handle his power as the foremost statesman of America?
As General Ripper states in Dr. Strangelove, the United States has acted as if "warfare is too important to leave to the politicians". We need a President who is willing to reverse this trend and bring the diplomacy of the past into the 21st century.
Why then, make Mandrake British? Think about the post-WWII relationship the United States and Britain have... one could easily say the United States is the brash, ignorant, paranoid, reckless, unilaterally-acting leader in the relationship while Great Britain serves as its trusty ally, following commands but feebly voicing its doubts along the way. Save the Falkland Islands, Great Britain has only shown force when acting along with an American action since WWII. Save the United States' actions within our sphere of influence as defined in the Monroe Doctrine and a few retalitory bombings, Britain has aided us in our post-WWII conflicts, either directly or in official policy.
What I would like to see is the United States becoming a more coherent leader. I understand that often international diplomacy is an excercize in triviality. Global organizations have never enacted lasting peace of any sort - one has to only look at Mussolini's actions in Eithiopia and Japan's expansion into Manchuria to see evidence of this. Lasting peace has usually happened in one of two ways:
- The existence of a superpower who can exert its will upon the entire world (e.g. Pax Romana).
- The existence of two coalitions/alliances of equal strength keeping one another in check (e.g. the period of the Balance of Powers before WWI - Britain/France/Italy and Germany/Russia/Austro-Hungary).
It appears as though for the time being neither of these options are open to us. We have proved the era of the United States as the unquestioned superpower of the world has faded, and even if the EU had not undermined the strength of NATO's bond, it is not a conventional coalition which opposes the United States in today's world. It is largely web of covert organizations.
This presents our nation with a clear dilemma - how do we acquire peace in the current age? In what way can the United States form a coalition capable of keeping peace across the world? Surely the begining to finding an answer is in bringing nations into a level-playing field with ourselves at the diplomatic table and pragmatically finding solutions in questions of global peace. I would enjoy the six-nation talks being in a position to be assertive with North Korea, but the United States' unilateral policy in other parts of the world makes this difficult. One key issue in my vote for President in '08 will be in the area of foreign policy. How will the next Commander-in-Chief handle his power as the foremost statesman of America?
As General Ripper states in Dr. Strangelove, the United States has acted as if "warfare is too important to leave to the politicians". We need a President who is willing to reverse this trend and bring the diplomacy of the past into the 21st century.
The Barrage is Over
There are many things about the American political system that are strange by world standards. The most interesting, I think, is the degree to which the out-party has the power to restrain majorities from enacting laws it stridently opposes. First, surly committee chairs can bottle up almost anything in committee, preventing bills from reaching the floor. In the Senate, the presence of the filibuster means that to enact anything meaningful, you need almost a super-majority of support, 60 votes. If there is disagreement on a piece of legislation between the House and Senate, lots of laws which have broad support in both chambers never emerge from conference committees. And of course, if one party occupies Congress and the other party occupies the Presidency, nothing of consequence gets done unless you can muster the super-majority necessary to override a veto.
So, it's fair to say that getting anything at all done in Congress is difficult. With a two-vote majority in the Senate and about a 30-vote majority in the House, it's unlikely that many of the policies I advocate for are ever going to get enacted. I know this very well. But with the majority, things you don't want to happen almost never happen. Anything that the majority of the majority opposes, even if it is supported by a floor majority, will never get a vote on the floor of either house of Congress.
It dawned on me in a tangible way yesterday why the Democrats' victory in November was so important. I was reading this article in the Nation when this quote jumped out at me:
"...Going from a Congressional leadership that marched in lockstep with Bush to one led by Pelosi and Reid will mean that debates no longer start with proposals that would take us backward," says Anna Aurilio, legislative director of USPIRG. "We won't have to keep fighting to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; ANWR is safe now. Instead, we'll have an opportunity to bring forward policies that could actually solve the problems we face."
It's all pretty much right in that quote. No longer do I have to worry about the Bush Administration slashing the EPA budget. No longer do I have to worry about a "Clear Skies" initiative that relaxes emissions standards on polluters; no longer do I have to worry about a "Healthy Forests" initiative that increases logging on federal land; no longer do I have to worry about stepped-up drilling and mining in Colorado's Front Range; no more do I have to fight to protect caribou in ANWR from oil drilling.
Granted, I'm probably not going to get carbon dioxide added to the list of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. But, for at least the next two years, I will not have to fight so hard to prevent things that I passionately disagree with from being shoved down my throat. It's been so long since that's been the case that I don't even know how to conceive of non-threatening politics. Democrats have felt as if we were bunkered down under continuous assault for six years now, and I think we're all starting to realize how wonderful it is to have the negative agenda-setting power that holding the majority provides. You can practically feel it in the air -- the cloud is breaking up and shell-shocked Democrats are emerging from their battered shelters, sniffing the air. The fear, the frustration, the anger, and the endless irritation -- it just floats away.
For a little while, at least. Then it's back to business.
So, it's fair to say that getting anything at all done in Congress is difficult. With a two-vote majority in the Senate and about a 30-vote majority in the House, it's unlikely that many of the policies I advocate for are ever going to get enacted. I know this very well. But with the majority, things you don't want to happen almost never happen. Anything that the majority of the majority opposes, even if it is supported by a floor majority, will never get a vote on the floor of either house of Congress.
It dawned on me in a tangible way yesterday why the Democrats' victory in November was so important. I was reading this article in the Nation when this quote jumped out at me:
"...Going from a Congressional leadership that marched in lockstep with Bush to one led by Pelosi and Reid will mean that debates no longer start with proposals that would take us backward," says Anna Aurilio, legislative director of USPIRG. "We won't have to keep fighting to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; ANWR is safe now. Instead, we'll have an opportunity to bring forward policies that could actually solve the problems we face."
It's all pretty much right in that quote. No longer do I have to worry about the Bush Administration slashing the EPA budget. No longer do I have to worry about a "Clear Skies" initiative that relaxes emissions standards on polluters; no longer do I have to worry about a "Healthy Forests" initiative that increases logging on federal land; no longer do I have to worry about stepped-up drilling and mining in Colorado's Front Range; no more do I have to fight to protect caribou in ANWR from oil drilling.
Granted, I'm probably not going to get carbon dioxide added to the list of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. But, for at least the next two years, I will not have to fight so hard to prevent things that I passionately disagree with from being shoved down my throat. It's been so long since that's been the case that I don't even know how to conceive of non-threatening politics. Democrats have felt as if we were bunkered down under continuous assault for six years now, and I think we're all starting to realize how wonderful it is to have the negative agenda-setting power that holding the majority provides. You can practically feel it in the air -- the cloud is breaking up and shell-shocked Democrats are emerging from their battered shelters, sniffing the air. The fear, the frustration, the anger, and the endless irritation -- it just floats away.
For a little while, at least. Then it's back to business.
McCain - Lieberman '08?
Here's something to think about. Given the likelihood that social conservatives will reject John McCain as the Republican standard-bearer in 2008, what are the chances of an "independent" McCain-Lieberman ticket in 2008? Mark Schmitt has a brief thought about it. I think it would be hard for anyone who's not a billionaire to mount a nationwide third-party challenge in the next election, so I'm skeptical about the "revenge of the independents" argument.
Nonetheless: I think a McCain - Lieberman ticket would spell doom for Republicans in 2008, mostly because it would split the committed Republican vote in most battleground states. No liberal in his right mind would vote for McCain and Lieberman in a Presidential election. A liberal platform advocating fair trade, a balanced federal budget, preserving Social Security in its present form, disengaging from Iraq, and taking action on global warming would hold the base together. On the other hand, a base conservative platform calling for more tax cuts, privatizing Social Security, building a border fence, banning gay marriage, and maintaining troop levels in Iraq would face some crossover from McCain's likely platform.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that in 2000 the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama (with Russ Feingold as VP) and the Republican nominee is Mitt Romney or Sam Brownback (both more likely than Giuliani or McCain). With a competing McCain - Lieberman ticket, I suspect the winner would need only about 40 percent of the vote to win any given state. In a three-way race, I can see Obama - Feingold getting to 40 percent in places like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, etc. I think it's tougher for Romney - Brownback to get there.
There are definitely not more liberals than conservatives in the U.S., don't get me wrong. But I think there are an equal number of committed Democrats and Republicans in lots of states, and I see more trouble for Republicans than Democrats from a McCain- Lieberman challenge in those states in 2008.
TURKEY DAY UPDATE: I came across more speculation about McCain- Lieberman here, and here. I'll add more links as I find them. Most of the speculation about the pairing comes from Lieberman's decision to hire Marshall Wittmann, the proprietor of the Bull Moose Blog, as his new spokesman.
Nonetheless: I think a McCain - Lieberman ticket would spell doom for Republicans in 2008, mostly because it would split the committed Republican vote in most battleground states. No liberal in his right mind would vote for McCain and Lieberman in a Presidential election. A liberal platform advocating fair trade, a balanced federal budget, preserving Social Security in its present form, disengaging from Iraq, and taking action on global warming would hold the base together. On the other hand, a base conservative platform calling for more tax cuts, privatizing Social Security, building a border fence, banning gay marriage, and maintaining troop levels in Iraq would face some crossover from McCain's likely platform.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that in 2000 the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama (with Russ Feingold as VP) and the Republican nominee is Mitt Romney or Sam Brownback (both more likely than Giuliani or McCain). With a competing McCain - Lieberman ticket, I suspect the winner would need only about 40 percent of the vote to win any given state. In a three-way race, I can see Obama - Feingold getting to 40 percent in places like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, etc. I think it's tougher for Romney - Brownback to get there.
There are definitely not more liberals than conservatives in the U.S., don't get me wrong. But I think there are an equal number of committed Democrats and Republicans in lots of states, and I see more trouble for Republicans than Democrats from a McCain- Lieberman challenge in those states in 2008.
TURKEY DAY UPDATE: I came across more speculation about McCain- Lieberman here, and here. I'll add more links as I find them. Most of the speculation about the pairing comes from Lieberman's decision to hire Marshall Wittmann, the proprietor of the Bull Moose Blog, as his new spokesman.
A post from Quebec City
Quebec is a unique and phenomenally historical city. I highly recommend coming to visit this place. It's in close proximity to most locations in Maine -- took us about five hours to get here from Orono but at least a half hour was tossed on due to the Vichy (Nazi) French border patrol agents... but no, I've found the French people here to be very considerate and accomodating.
We came here looking to blow off some steam from the 5 or 6 straight weeks of work, hit up some clubs, etc. but were amazed by the sheer natural beauty of the surrounding area, the endless historical preservation of vast stretches of the city, including the building themselves, walls all around the "Old City", bridges, stone steps, etc. This is a true gem that I wish I could explore for more than just the one night I'm here.
Granted, It's cool coming here being under 21 and being able to stop in at the pubs and grab a brewskie, but that's really just the icing on the cake.
Probably the most unique aspect about Quebec -- by far the quietest city of over 50,000 people I've ever been to. It is a Tuesday night, but you can almost hear crickets in most of the Old City.
Anyways, best wishes from Quebec. Bonne nuit!
Death of a Legend
I know, I know, this blog is devoted to politics. But I wanted to note the passing of Robert Altman, one of the greatest American filmmakers of our time or any time. He made spectacular movies for more than 40 years. When you saw one of his movies, you knew who the author of the film was immediately. In another life, I wanted to be either Robert Altman or Stanley Kubrick.
Unlike a lot of filmmakers, Altman churned out one movie after another, spending little time worrying about some of the technical blips that would infuriate other directors. In his most productive periods, he would sometimes release three or four movies in a two-year span. Along the way, he made a few movies that looked a bit too rough (Buffalo Bill & the Indians, Pret-a-Porter). But he made some of the best American films I ever saw, like Brewster McCloud, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Nashville, The Player, Short Cuts, and Gosford Park.
Altman kept making wonderful movies literally right up until his death. It's somewhat fitting that his last movie was A Prairie Home Companion, which I recommend to anyone, whether you like Garrison Keillor or not. A wonderful movie about life, death, and lots of other things, too.
Altman made one explicitly political movie, Secret Honor, with the underappreciated Phillip Baker Hall playing Richard Nixon. It's quite theatrical, the way a lot of his movies were at the time, but it's also an impassioned look at a complex man. I never saw Tanner '88, though perhaps I will now.
The world won't be the same without him. Rest in peace, Robert.
Unlike a lot of filmmakers, Altman churned out one movie after another, spending little time worrying about some of the technical blips that would infuriate other directors. In his most productive periods, he would sometimes release three or four movies in a two-year span. Along the way, he made a few movies that looked a bit too rough (Buffalo Bill & the Indians, Pret-a-Porter). But he made some of the best American films I ever saw, like Brewster McCloud, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Nashville, The Player, Short Cuts, and Gosford Park.
Altman kept making wonderful movies literally right up until his death. It's somewhat fitting that his last movie was A Prairie Home Companion, which I recommend to anyone, whether you like Garrison Keillor or not. A wonderful movie about life, death, and lots of other things, too.
Altman made one explicitly political movie, Secret Honor, with the underappreciated Phillip Baker Hall playing Richard Nixon. It's quite theatrical, the way a lot of his movies were at the time, but it's also an impassioned look at a complex man. I never saw Tanner '88, though perhaps I will now.
The world won't be the same without him. Rest in peace, Robert.
Tom Friedman's "6 months"
Is Iraq really just a fool's errand? Hmmm... just another 6 months and we'll know for sure. I found Fair's compilation of Friedman quotes here to be simultaneously shameful and hilarious. I haven't read Friedman's books on globalization but this guy definitely needs to shut the hell up about Iraq.
Musings on Iraq.
What I don't understand about Iraq is how everyone blames it all on Bush Jr. There are several points that often get lost in the rhetoric of how we can blame Dubbya, but that I think need to be remembered.
1) This isn't an American war. The conflict began with, the UN and still remains a UN effort, it just so happens the only army in the UN worth anything is the US army. In spite of France's surrender before we ever went in, we are enforcing a United Nations mandate, not a United States mandate.
2) The gulf war never ended. The Sr. Bush thought it would be a good idea to end the war after only 100 hours and simply called a cease-fire after having broken the Republican National Guard. Admittedly, the objective was to stop the invasion of another country, not to press on and destroy Saddam's reign, but the war never officially ended, there was a ceasefire agreement, with specific terms and that was it.
What I have always found odd was Clinton's inability to actually live up to the terms of the ceasefire. We told the Saddam lead government that they had specific obligations to live up to, and they didn't. Clinton's answer? Let's just fire a few missiles every few years.
In spite of voting for him, I don't like Bush, but if nothing else, I respect him for keeping America a country with integrity. When we say, "We'll sign a ceasefire with you if you agree to our terms," we have to be willing to enforce those terms.
3) We're there. Bad intel or not, we went in. We went in and we took the government out. So now we either commit to staying until we can assist in getting up a working government, or we pull out and let the vacuum suck in whatever it will, and frankly I think the consequences of leaving a vacuum are far worse than if we had never gone in to begin with.
So should we stay or should we go? Should we stay or should we go? If we stay, yes, there will be trouble. But if we go, quite frankly, there will be double.
1) This isn't an American war. The conflict began with, the UN and still remains a UN effort, it just so happens the only army in the UN worth anything is the US army. In spite of France's surrender before we ever went in, we are enforcing a United Nations mandate, not a United States mandate.
2) The gulf war never ended. The Sr. Bush thought it would be a good idea to end the war after only 100 hours and simply called a cease-fire after having broken the Republican National Guard. Admittedly, the objective was to stop the invasion of another country, not to press on and destroy Saddam's reign, but the war never officially ended, there was a ceasefire agreement, with specific terms and that was it.
What I have always found odd was Clinton's inability to actually live up to the terms of the ceasefire. We told the Saddam lead government that they had specific obligations to live up to, and they didn't. Clinton's answer? Let's just fire a few missiles every few years.
In spite of voting for him, I don't like Bush, but if nothing else, I respect him for keeping America a country with integrity. When we say, "We'll sign a ceasefire with you if you agree to our terms," we have to be willing to enforce those terms.
3) We're there. Bad intel or not, we went in. We went in and we took the government out. So now we either commit to staying until we can assist in getting up a working government, or we pull out and let the vacuum suck in whatever it will, and frankly I think the consequences of leaving a vacuum are far worse than if we had never gone in to begin with.
So should we stay or should we go? Should we stay or should we go? If we stay, yes, there will be trouble. But if we go, quite frankly, there will be double.
The draft? Just what this country needs
I applaud Rep. Charles Rengel's calls to reinstate the draft, despite its overwhelming unpopularity with the public. I think Rengel makes a valid point:
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."
Regardless of one's economic situation, ethnic background, gender, everybody should have to perform some sort of 2-4 year service for their country. Individuals' skills would have to be factored in to determine what role would fit them best, but a completely random lottery would make everybody vulnerable to compulsive military service. Every community and a wide swath of families would have their prized youth potentially in harms way. Preserving our freedom and protecting the very existence of our society should not be a task carried out by just those who are selfless and brave enough to sign up for the job. It is a responsibility that should be distributed equally amongst everyone we know, and not one person should be immune to the costs.
The number one objective in reinstating the draft is to make unnecessary war less likely. My intuition tells me, though, that Americans would still be willing to sacrifice, if the cause was truly in the best interest of the nation. Something tells me Americans would've seen the value in the Afghanistan intervention but would have thought twice about Iraq, or at least demanded a withdrawal a long time ago. American lives are not worth timid and cowardly guesses that maybe "another six months" (Tom Friedman) will bring victory.
The value of the draft is not purely symbolic either. The vast manpower would be a valuable asset in restoring America's image and credibility in the world by undertaking the same types of humanitarian missions as the Canadians. Catastrophic earthquake in Pakistan? How about 30,000 able bodied American draftees to help rebuild? And it won't cost anything.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft, and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way."
Regardless of one's economic situation, ethnic background, gender, everybody should have to perform some sort of 2-4 year service for their country. Individuals' skills would have to be factored in to determine what role would fit them best, but a completely random lottery would make everybody vulnerable to compulsive military service. Every community and a wide swath of families would have their prized youth potentially in harms way. Preserving our freedom and protecting the very existence of our society should not be a task carried out by just those who are selfless and brave enough to sign up for the job. It is a responsibility that should be distributed equally amongst everyone we know, and not one person should be immune to the costs.
The number one objective in reinstating the draft is to make unnecessary war less likely. My intuition tells me, though, that Americans would still be willing to sacrifice, if the cause was truly in the best interest of the nation. Something tells me Americans would've seen the value in the Afghanistan intervention but would have thought twice about Iraq, or at least demanded a withdrawal a long time ago. American lives are not worth timid and cowardly guesses that maybe "another six months" (Tom Friedman) will bring victory.
The value of the draft is not purely symbolic either. The vast manpower would be a valuable asset in restoring America's image and credibility in the world by undertaking the same types of humanitarian missions as the Canadians. Catastrophic earthquake in Pakistan? How about 30,000 able bodied American draftees to help rebuild? And it won't cost anything.
Further response to Brad's argument regarding multiparty systems
something else to ponder: given the increasingly partisan nature of both houses of Congress, and with both parties bargaining less and less with one another, wouldn't a multiparty system force a greater realism and need to compromise upon those in Congress?
also worth pondering, with the increasingly powerful nature of the executive branch, will we soon be able to by-pass representative democracy with direct democracy as de Gaulle in France favoured (and employed to gain his Fifth Republic Constitution)?
Full disclosure: i don't believe in democracy haha.
also worth pondering, with the increasingly powerful nature of the executive branch, will we soon be able to by-pass representative democracy with direct democracy as de Gaulle in France favoured (and employed to gain his Fifth Republic Constitution)?
Full disclosure: i don't believe in democracy haha.
A Pleasant Surprise
This is James Inhofe, who in my mind represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. He is an ideologue who is resistant to facts that don't square with his version of the truth. He supports torture. His attitude toward the Middle East is shaped by his apocalyptic Biblical fantasies. Not only does he oppose various expansions of rights for homosexuals, but he has an outright hostility and disgust for them. Recently, he proudly boasted that his sterling family tree hasn't been tainted by a single divorce or incidence of homosexuality. And, most important to me, Inhofe refuses to acknowledge that humans are the source of the global warming that has been observed over the past 100 or so years. Global warming is a "hoax," according to Inhofe, who represents deep-red Oklahoma.
So, it was with great interest and surprise that I learned Inhofe, who has chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee since 2002, may be supplanted as Ranking Member by John Warner. Warner is an honest conservative who votes the way he believes, but has an enormous amount of respect for the lawmaking process and understands that compromise is the most effective way to govern (other conservative Republicans I admire include Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and Chuck Grassley) . Inhofe, on the other hand, has nothing but contempt for the other side, and represents the kind of poisonous, polarizing politics that is killing rational political discourse in our country. I don't expect much much from Republicans anymore, but allocating such a high-profile leadership position to a reality-based politician like Warner would speak volumes.
A related Republican-related environment development: GOP Presidential hopeful John McCain has been sending suprising signals about Bush's environmental policies. Would he support federal action to cap-and-trade carbon dioxide emissions?
Bush and "Democracy"
George Bush is a champion of democracy all across the world.
But you've got to pick the leader Bush wants, or else face the consequences. Actually, I doubt Bush really knows much about what his hero Reagan did to this poor country 20 years ago. He probably couldn't tell you the difference between a Sandinista and a Sunni.
So why can't we tolerate Daniel Ortega coming to power in Nicaragua? The explanation in the '80s was that the Sandinistas would allow Nicaragua to become a Soviet outpost in our sphere of influence. Today, the claim is that leftist regimes like Chavez and Castro are rotten apples that are going to spoil the whole barrel in Latin America.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about Chavez. Or Castro.
But I think the point here is that despite Bush's rhetoric on democracy promotion, either in the Middle East or worldwide, the fundamental character of U.S. foreign policy has not changed since World War II -- aside from a more hawkish, unilateral approach under Bush. I'm sure Washington would love to see a stable, popularly elected, democratic government come to power in Iraq. But what if the Iraqis elected a Daniel Ortega? Or more relevant to their region, what if they elected a shi'ite, Iranian style, theocrat hostile to Israel and the West? That clearly wouldn't be the right kind of democracy.
Vietnam down the sink hole
Always reassuring to see that Bush has learned absolutely nothing from America's last military catastrophe. The decision to send troops to Vietnam was based on an ignorant ideology and was destined to fail because of a complete lack of understanding of the region's history. Both conflicts reached stages where the body bags continued to fill, at increasing paces with no end in sight, despite the optimistic forecasts back home and a dangerous stubborness to admit failure.
The Iraq War at this point will not be "won" just as we couldn't "win" in Vietnam. The definition of victory in either case is ambiguous. In Vietnam, we actually succeeded in completely devistating the society, thus discouraging others from stepping outside the U.S. global order. But as far as keeping Vietnam partitioned and maintaining a friendly dictatoship in the south -- it was pretty clear by 1962, maybe even in 1954 with the French defeat, that this was strategically impossible.
We've reached the point in Iraq where it's also clear victory is impossible. No American politician will announce, "we cannot win in Iraq" but it's the truth. Refusing to admit this will only result in more dead and maimed U.S. soldiers. What will happen in Iraq once we leave will be ugly (it is already) but I don't see how anybody at this point can look at the last four years of our involvement in Iraq and point to progress or hopeful signs for success.
First (of many) Third Party Post(s)
Over the last few days, people have been expressing quite a lot of dissatisfaction with the two-party system, myself included. I was muttering about the idiotic debate over Majority Leader in the House, Michael held his nose at the re-emergence of Trent Lott in the Senate, and most everybody else has expressed some form of dissatisfaction with the current political configuration in the U.S.
The argument for multiparty competition usually goes something like this: with a 2-party system, both coalitions lack ideological distinction, passion, and change comes at a glacial pace, and usually in an incremental form. Both parties tack toward something like the center, trying to win over moderates, but at the expense of a coherent policy agenda. Neither party ultimately stands for anything, and lots of important issues go unaddressed by the parties because they threaten to fracture the diverse coalitions that have somehow aggregated into the Democratic or Republican parties.
Another complaint, and one that seems to hold weight here, is that the various policy stands that have become associated with the two parties makes no intuitive sense, leaving lots of people without an ideologically consistent home. What do you do if you think the federal government should provide a broad safety net and protect the environment, but you're pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, and support an aggressive and hawkish foreign policy? There's not an obvious home for such a person in the U.S.
Me? I think the two-party system offers a clearer choice for voters now than it ever has, mostly because liberals and conservatives have sorted themselves into the more appropriate parties over the past 25-30 years. What this means is that Republicans are conservative Republicans and Democrats are liberal Democrats. This wasn't always the case. If you believe that parties should offer a clear and ideologically consistent choice to the voter, our current system does that reasonably well, or as well as can be expected in a nation of 300 million people. The primary offers something of a chance for ideological debate, and primaries guarantee that the two parties will always be at least somewhat distinct (the primary electorate is usually very ideological). Plus, most 3rd party issues get absorbed by the one of the major parties anyway, once they get important enough. Full disclosure: I voted Nader in 2000.
When it comes to governing, coalitions will ALWAYS form in the legislative arena, for the simple fact that where there are diverse interests, there are only pluralities. Legislators face a collective action problem when they find themselves just one of 435 (or 100) self-interested actors. Building a coalition to pass any given piece of legislation is time-consuming and tedious; lawmakers find they can more easily get their priorities considered and enacted into law by entering into mutually beneficial agreements with other lawmakers. And so, sooner or later, parties form. The founders distrusted parties, but even Madison and Jefferson reluctantly joined standing coalitons after a few sessions of legislative experience.
The same concept holds, whether you have a multiparty system or not. If you need a majority to pass a law, you need friends in order to get what you want. This means compromises. In the U.S., these compromises have been institutionalized into a 2-party system, for better or worse. This means that lots of issues get put on the back burner while parties bicker and posture in order to maintain power or gain a majority on Election Day.
Another thing: first-past-the-post election systems almost invariably lead to a 2-party system, because 1) voters prefer the informational shortcut that party represents, and 2) candidates need the party brand name and institutional assistance to get elected.
It's frustrating to watch the whole thing work itself out. Sometimes I wonder whether a proportional representation system or parliamentary structure would work in the U.S. But ultimately under such a configuration, people would have the same frustrations, because the coalitions that would become necessary for governing would push some issues off the table and induce an incentive to pander to the center. Lots of people would find themselves without an ideological home that makes sense to them.
Of course, it's easy for me to say all this. I'm reasonably satisfied with the Democratic agenda. But then again, as jouncer4life pointed out, you have John Baldacci. Okay, enough from me, I'll bloviate about "clean elections" some other time.
The argument for multiparty competition usually goes something like this: with a 2-party system, both coalitions lack ideological distinction, passion, and change comes at a glacial pace, and usually in an incremental form. Both parties tack toward something like the center, trying to win over moderates, but at the expense of a coherent policy agenda. Neither party ultimately stands for anything, and lots of important issues go unaddressed by the parties because they threaten to fracture the diverse coalitions that have somehow aggregated into the Democratic or Republican parties.
Another complaint, and one that seems to hold weight here, is that the various policy stands that have become associated with the two parties makes no intuitive sense, leaving lots of people without an ideologically consistent home. What do you do if you think the federal government should provide a broad safety net and protect the environment, but you're pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, and support an aggressive and hawkish foreign policy? There's not an obvious home for such a person in the U.S.
Me? I think the two-party system offers a clearer choice for voters now than it ever has, mostly because liberals and conservatives have sorted themselves into the more appropriate parties over the past 25-30 years. What this means is that Republicans are conservative Republicans and Democrats are liberal Democrats. This wasn't always the case. If you believe that parties should offer a clear and ideologically consistent choice to the voter, our current system does that reasonably well, or as well as can be expected in a nation of 300 million people. The primary offers something of a chance for ideological debate, and primaries guarantee that the two parties will always be at least somewhat distinct (the primary electorate is usually very ideological). Plus, most 3rd party issues get absorbed by the one of the major parties anyway, once they get important enough. Full disclosure: I voted Nader in 2000.
When it comes to governing, coalitions will ALWAYS form in the legislative arena, for the simple fact that where there are diverse interests, there are only pluralities. Legislators face a collective action problem when they find themselves just one of 435 (or 100) self-interested actors. Building a coalition to pass any given piece of legislation is time-consuming and tedious; lawmakers find they can more easily get their priorities considered and enacted into law by entering into mutually beneficial agreements with other lawmakers. And so, sooner or later, parties form. The founders distrusted parties, but even Madison and Jefferson reluctantly joined standing coalitons after a few sessions of legislative experience.
The same concept holds, whether you have a multiparty system or not. If you need a majority to pass a law, you need friends in order to get what you want. This means compromises. In the U.S., these compromises have been institutionalized into a 2-party system, for better or worse. This means that lots of issues get put on the back burner while parties bicker and posture in order to maintain power or gain a majority on Election Day.
Another thing: first-past-the-post election systems almost invariably lead to a 2-party system, because 1) voters prefer the informational shortcut that party represents, and 2) candidates need the party brand name and institutional assistance to get elected.
It's frustrating to watch the whole thing work itself out. Sometimes I wonder whether a proportional representation system or parliamentary structure would work in the U.S. But ultimately under such a configuration, people would have the same frustrations, because the coalitions that would become necessary for governing would push some issues off the table and induce an incentive to pander to the center. Lots of people would find themselves without an ideological home that makes sense to them.
Of course, it's easy for me to say all this. I'm reasonably satisfied with the Democratic agenda. But then again, as jouncer4life pointed out, you have John Baldacci. Okay, enough from me, I'll bloviate about "clean elections" some other time.
Preaching Moderation
My name is Bryan Fowler, and I am extremely moderate (if that isn't too much of a paradox). My parents are heavily conservative Christians (Dan Rather was the prophet of the Antichrist), so on many sociopolitical "moral" issues I will have tendencies toward the right. Conversely, given our country's dire economic situation, I have my doubts concerning such a strictly capitalist system, and so may tend to the left on more economic issues. On the environment... my father runs a landfill, so let's just say I have my doubts about the DEP. Now, to business.
Not to jump the gun on topics, but (I believe it was) Brad brought up an interesting point concerning the tendency toward the development of centrist coalition governments in the case of a multiparty system. Though this type of government can be appallingly inefficient, is it really so fair for Old John "Baldy" Balidacci to claim victory while gaining the immense 38% plurality of vote? I am disgusted with the two party system and the propensity to vote for "the lesser of two evils." That's practically all I heard about during the 2004 campaign, when both major parties lauded heavily inept candidates. I mean... Chandler Woodcock vs. John Balidacci? I have yet to see what Baldy's really accomplished for the state of Maine, and I know many students who had reason enough not to vote for Chandler because of his name. If we have a two party system, we need parties that actually can represent the needs and desires of American society, not consign people to voting for the person who sucks less.
Looking forward to hearing opinions from both sides of the aisle.
Not to jump the gun on topics, but (I believe it was) Brad brought up an interesting point concerning the tendency toward the development of centrist coalition governments in the case of a multiparty system. Though this type of government can be appallingly inefficient, is it really so fair for Old John "Baldy" Balidacci to claim victory while gaining the immense 38% plurality of vote? I am disgusted with the two party system and the propensity to vote for "the lesser of two evils." That's practically all I heard about during the 2004 campaign, when both major parties lauded heavily inept candidates. I mean... Chandler Woodcock vs. John Balidacci? I have yet to see what Baldy's really accomplished for the state of Maine, and I know many students who had reason enough not to vote for Chandler because of his name. If we have a two party system, we need parties that actually can represent the needs and desires of American society, not consign people to voting for the person who sucks less.
Looking forward to hearing opinions from both sides of the aisle.
Murtha and ABSCAM
Busy morning, so I can't discuss this at length, but for anyone whose intersted in the Murtha-ABSCAM connection, here's a good summary. Hoyer or Murtha? Call me an agnostic, since I don't like Murtha's propensity for pork and I was disgusted by Hoyer's vote on the Bankruptcy Bill last year. I do think the party leadership should be unified, though -- I'm sick of reading articles by the odious Adam Nagourney about how Democrats are constantly at loggerheads.
Just pick somebody and start talking about the issues that the party agrees on. There are lots of them.
Now, a question: Anyone know how I can insert breaks between paragraphs on my posts? Do I need to adjust my settings on blogger, or within the message itself?
Just pick somebody and start talking about the issues that the party agrees on. There are lots of them.
Now, a question: Anyone know how I can insert breaks between paragraphs on my posts? Do I need to adjust my settings on blogger, or within the message itself?
Hello from the new guy.
- My hero, Stephen Colbert.
Hello, my name is Ryan Wiedmaier, I am 6'9 freakish oaf and friend of Lynn and Michael's from college. I grew up a hardcore liberal in
Within our two party system I am a bit of an odd duck. I firmly stand against big business and I could poke Bush in the eye for giving Exxon an extra tax cut in the quarter they made more profit in the history of any company in the history of companies, but I also stand against issues like abortion, and gay marriage. I am somewhat in the left on the economy, and firmly entrenched in the right socially.
It may be worth noting that while a currently an odd duck, I am finding that within Evangelical Christianity, there are more and more who, like me, find themselves voting based upon the social issues of gay marriage and abortion, but who find themselves ill at ease with the economic policies (and some would say downright greed) that comes with a vote for the republicans.
I look forward to slinging the mud with y'all as we dig into the issues that always get me fired up, but that my wife looks at me and shakes her head at....
The Moderate Right's Dilemma
It has been already mentioned that in the recent elections, the two primary choices for any given congressional seats were "Iraq!" and "Aaaaah!", to which most people checked off the latter (as if Congress were able to directly affect war policy with Bush in the White House). I do not blame these people, and in many districts I may have done the same. However, for a member of the center-right, the question was not as clearly defined. The Republicans have many people whom my political ideology lines up with nicely. The problem is if I were to list them, you would see the names of congressmen pushed to the outer fringe of their party and virutally abandoned by the neo-con/old guard faction controlling the party. The Democrats, on the other hand, did little to offer me a credible alternative. I, like Lynn and in contrast to Joey, think that simple "cut and run" cannot be an option in Iraq. Anyone wihout an (R) next to their name on my ballot in '06 did not see it that way.
The kind of Democrat who I would have voted for is a Jeremy Fischer type: responsible, moderate, and possessing an agenda of actual reform rather than simply nay-saying of anything Republican. If anyone saw his campaign material, he was running as the Republican party should be running. Specifically targeted tax cuts and improved infrastructure to stimulate the economy and an environmental policy to find a middle ground between the environmentalist and the industrialist-sportsman are both things the Republican party could have adopted had it not been controlled by a leadership bent on all-or-nothing ("all" being "crap we want - and we want a continued war in Iraq").
Maine instead were given Mike Michaud, Tom Allen (incumbants), and Jean Hay-Bright as the Democratic options. Michaud is a union-elected politician who has shown, in the two occassions I have seen him speak, the ability to comment only on the utterly inconsequential trifecta of his Franco-American roots, his education policy, and his policy on veterans' affairs. Allen (and this is an open question to either the esteemed representative or Joey)... who is he!? Hay-Bright had no chance of beating Snowe, but nonetheless her platform was the aformentioned "Aaaaah!".
And so for better or worse, I voted mostly Republican (with a few exceptions), but Congress is soon to be a distinctly Democratic body. As a right-leaning swing vote, I would like to join with many in America and challenge the Democratic party to take advantage of the next two years and please, please, please do something! We've just seen what happens when you don't.
The kind of Democrat who I would have voted for is a Jeremy Fischer type: responsible, moderate, and possessing an agenda of actual reform rather than simply nay-saying of anything Republican. If anyone saw his campaign material, he was running as the Republican party should be running. Specifically targeted tax cuts and improved infrastructure to stimulate the economy and an environmental policy to find a middle ground between the environmentalist and the industrialist-sportsman are both things the Republican party could have adopted had it not been controlled by a leadership bent on all-or-nothing ("all" being "crap we want - and we want a continued war in Iraq").
Maine instead were given Mike Michaud, Tom Allen (incumbants), and Jean Hay-Bright as the Democratic options. Michaud is a union-elected politician who has shown, in the two occassions I have seen him speak, the ability to comment only on the utterly inconsequential trifecta of his Franco-American roots, his education policy, and his policy on veterans' affairs. Allen (and this is an open question to either the esteemed representative or Joey)... who is he!? Hay-Bright had no chance of beating Snowe, but nonetheless her platform was the aformentioned "Aaaaah!".
And so for better or worse, I voted mostly Republican (with a few exceptions), but Congress is soon to be a distinctly Democratic body. As a right-leaning swing vote, I would like to join with many in America and challenge the Democratic party to take advantage of the next two years and please, please, please do something! We've just seen what happens when you don't.
My Real Location on the Compass
Michael is witness to the second installment of "Erskine on the Political Compass." Just like last time, I sit almost atop Ghandi on the compass. Thus, I'm not really "middle," but if Michael and I can see eye to eye on so many things, then I think there might be something for me in the middle ground than we think. I'm left (at -4.88) and libertarian (-1.54) on the compass, but I am far right in some of my social agenda. Time will tell. In the meantime I'm glad to make some new acquaintances and possibly friends.
My First (Real) Blog
I would like to begin by thanking Joe and Mike for inviting me to participate in this forum. It is my hope that this endeavour will produce a better understanding of the issues for all of us and that we may all become more understanding and appreciative of the diverse opinions on ALL sides of the aisle.
With that, I begin my discussion--which I promise to try to keep brief.
First off, I cannot say I agree that this past election represents a landslide. Although the House of Representatives saw a major reversal of fortune for the Republicans, they did not give up a two-thirds majority to the Democrats. The other consideration is that the Democrats do not truly control the Senate. If Joe Lieberman returns to the Democratic party, they will still have achieved only 50 seats with the deciding vote (which everyone assumes) will come from the independant Vermont senator (who calls himself a socialist). Match these facts with an additional one that most of those newly elected Democrats are not liberal by any means--only by comparison to the Reagan neo-conservative strain still at the helm of the Republican Party--nor can many of them be described as progressive. The only real victory for the Democrats is the fact that senior members will take control of key posts from Republicans and begin to try to reverse many of the Bush administration's policies. Other than that minor victory (which if it is to remain a victory, they must succeed in improving the social and political discourse in this country) the Republican legacy since 1980 still lives on.
I completely agree with Joe when he writes about the problems of incumbancy. I believe the damage done to the Republicans in the House would have been greater if we did not have the incumbancy returns which we have (98%). Although I feel very strongly on this issue, I will leave it for another week's discussion.
Another point I wish to make is that although there are numerous issues that Americans complain out and would like to see ameliorated, the only major issues which they cared enough to vote for were Iraq and Iraq (secondarily, government corruption, but the impact of that issue was felt more regionally than nationally). Based on the exit polls I have seen, the biggest beef voters had with Iraq was that the Republicans showed no logical direction and they were no longer willing to allow them to lead us in prosecuting this war. They voted for the Democrats not because of any brilliant strategy for eventual withdrawal (not to be confused with cutting and running) but because they simply were not Republicans. Left with no other option (which I shall leave for a later discussion) they turned to the Democrats who talked of exiting Iraq asap and were not of the same mind as the Vice President ("full-speed ahead"). The burden for the Democrats in the immediate months ahead is to make good with their promise to bring direction to the course in Iraq (if such change is possible) and coalesce enough to develop a foreign policy which maintains their ideals.
Given these sentiments, I am not as optimistic as others are about the changeover in the legislative branch, yet I anxiously await the next two years hoping that some new policies arise which can give me hope.
With that, I begin my discussion--which I promise to try to keep brief.
First off, I cannot say I agree that this past election represents a landslide. Although the House of Representatives saw a major reversal of fortune for the Republicans, they did not give up a two-thirds majority to the Democrats. The other consideration is that the Democrats do not truly control the Senate. If Joe Lieberman returns to the Democratic party, they will still have achieved only 50 seats with the deciding vote (which everyone assumes) will come from the independant Vermont senator (who calls himself a socialist). Match these facts with an additional one that most of those newly elected Democrats are not liberal by any means--only by comparison to the Reagan neo-conservative strain still at the helm of the Republican Party--nor can many of them be described as progressive. The only real victory for the Democrats is the fact that senior members will take control of key posts from Republicans and begin to try to reverse many of the Bush administration's policies. Other than that minor victory (which if it is to remain a victory, they must succeed in improving the social and political discourse in this country) the Republican legacy since 1980 still lives on.
I completely agree with Joe when he writes about the problems of incumbancy. I believe the damage done to the Republicans in the House would have been greater if we did not have the incumbancy returns which we have (98%). Although I feel very strongly on this issue, I will leave it for another week's discussion.
Another point I wish to make is that although there are numerous issues that Americans complain out and would like to see ameliorated, the only major issues which they cared enough to vote for were Iraq and Iraq (secondarily, government corruption, but the impact of that issue was felt more regionally than nationally). Based on the exit polls I have seen, the biggest beef voters had with Iraq was that the Republicans showed no logical direction and they were no longer willing to allow them to lead us in prosecuting this war. They voted for the Democrats not because of any brilliant strategy for eventual withdrawal (not to be confused with cutting and running) but because they simply were not Republicans. Left with no other option (which I shall leave for a later discussion) they turned to the Democrats who talked of exiting Iraq asap and were not of the same mind as the Vice President ("full-speed ahead"). The burden for the Democrats in the immediate months ahead is to make good with their promise to bring direction to the course in Iraq (if such change is possible) and coalesce enough to develop a foreign policy which maintains their ideals.
Given these sentiments, I am not as optimistic as others are about the changeover in the legislative branch, yet I anxiously await the next two years hoping that some new policies arise which can give me hope.
Thoughts on the Election
The election was undoubtedly a Democratic landslide. Downplayers have been claiming a second term president's party always suffers substantial losses. Actually, during Bill Clinton's second term, Democrats held all over their Senate seats and gained five seats in the House. The last second term election before that would've been in '88, but so much has changed -- incumbency advantage has increased dramatically, underlying partisan advantage has increased, redistricting has tightened the states' majority party control or simply worked in favor of the incumbents. A tiny minority of districts are competative at all. Through various mechanisms, like-minded voters have been packed into districts together, solidifying one party control. I think it's actually impressive that Democrats were able to win 30 seats out of the 50 or 60 that could be classified competetive out of 435.
That said, I'm not sure why voters voted as they did aside from what the exit polls revealed: dissatisfaction with Iraq and corruption in government. I think people understand Bush has failed in Iraq but they don't think Democrats have a plan for Iraq. This can be interpreted a couple of different ways -- a plan for victory? Or a plan, period? It's pretty clear there's a general plan -- establish benchmarks and begin a phased withdrawal, leaving responsibility in the hands of the Iraqi government. Regardless, voters aren't enamored with the Democratic leadership on this issue.
I'm thinking the other explanation for the Democratic landslide is just the obvious failure of Republican leadership. They've had six years of unchecked power and have failed on every imaginable meaningful issue. I guess everybody's definition of failure is different, but a massive federal budget deficit, 2,800+ dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq, rising health care costs, widening of the gap between rich and poor, and attempts to dismantle popular government entitlement programs -- ie: Social Security just can't bode well for any political party.
I'm feeling confident that the Democratic Party can restore people's faith in government in the next two years. As Democrats move to pass popular, much needed legislation like a raise in the minimum wage, federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, lowering prescription drug prices, etc. Americans will get a taste of Democratic ideas. If Republicans think this next session will be a do-nothing Congress, it will only be because Bush vetoes popular legislation sponsored by Democrats. The ideas will be plainly visible for everyone to see. Bush & the Republicans standing in the way of this progress will not work in their favor in '08.
Brad, liberal
This one is take 2, as the first one disappeared somewhere into a bewildering internet vortex. As I'm apparently the liberal of this group, I blame society for whatever it is that just happened, not myself.
Anyway, I'm Joey's older brother Brad, and I'm a 29-year old graduate student at Fordham University. I'm planning on starting a Ph.D. program next fall, and I hope to teach American Politics when that's done.
My political interests are mostly centered on the environment, although I have opinions on a wide range of political matters. The photo to the left is one I took of Loyalsock Creek in PA on a backpacking trip. Mostly I wanted to see if I could figure out how to post a photo on the blog, but I also wanted to impress everyone with my eye for arresting scenery. While I'm figuring out how all this works, here's a story from the NY Times about possible changes (or the lack thereof) to Congressional environmental committees when the new group takes over in January.
About me: I'm married, and my wife is an attorney specializing in education law. She's much smarter than I am, and I'll go to her as a resource whenever legal issues come up (with today's Republican Party, I imagine she'll be called upon often). We live in a tiny apartment in Hoboken, NJ, across the Hudson from Manhattan. I was born in Presque Isle, Maine and hope to teach in Maine or somewhere in northern New England when I finish my studies.
I'm not one for manifestos, but I believe in efficient, robust government that allows the market to work its magic, while providing a broad safety net that guarantees a basic standard of living. Most of the details within this framework, I believe, are negotiable. I look forward to reading all of your thoughts.
LATE UPDATE: I didn't want to monopolize things right away, but if you haven't seen this, take a look. Fair and Balanced.
Introduction
Wow... finally the perfect forum to post all of my thinking on the current political scene in America. My political ranting on Facebook, MySpace, Livejournal, etc. never received too much attention but I'm hoping our friends and other politically minded people will get involved. A lot of blogs, infact almost every one I've ever seen, is slanted to the left or the right. With "Across the Aisle," we're going to present a variety of different viewpoints on developing events in American politics and the world. I've noticed the ideologically liberal or conservative blogs tend to form insulated communities of conformity. On many, dissent on these forums is discouraged and ridiculed. I'm not saying these blogs are all bad, but it is unhealthy to trap yourself in an echo chamber and never have your beliefs challenged from a different perspective.
So anyway, my name is Joseph Bishop. Unlike some bloggers, I can reveal a lot about myself because I'm just a college student. I don't have an important job, I'm not running for public office, etc. so I think I'm safe in revealing my identity. Additional info about me personally can be found on my "profile" on the upper right hand part of the page.
I would describe myself as a liberal. These labels have varying interpretations but in a contemporary American political sense, "liberalism" certainly applies to me.
I doubt I'll be writing extensively on social issues because most aren't especially salient to me. I would rather the Democratic Party and liberal minded people pursue more important matters that don't alienate people from the party. I think there's plenty of room in the Democratic Party for pro-gun, pro-life, anti-gay marriage people, etc.
I would consider myself pro-choice, anti-gun, and pro-gay marriage. Socially, I'm very libertarian. Hell, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana and lowering the drinking age (obviously.)
The social issue that matters most to me is definitely gay marriage. While I don't consider it to be as important as the civil rights battles for African-Americans in the 1960s, I do think giving gays equal rights is of top importance. Again, I don't think being pro-gay marriage should be a prerequisite to join the Democratic Party, but I'd like to see the country move in that direction.
Alright, so the issues most important to me:
energy/the environment -- if this issue is not addressed, no other issues will matter. Most importantly, if this country doesn't become energy independent, we will destroy the environment to a point where the earth will be uninhabitable. Second, the economic consequences could be devistating. Oil is not renewable. As the supply dwindles, the price could sky rocket. Our entire infrastructure is dependent on oil and this could completely paralyze our economy. Third, a vast supply of our oil comes from the Middle East. I would love to see the U.S. flick the middle finger to harshly oppressive and backwards regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, etc. The U.S. should be a moral leader -- a champion of human rights in the world. We have no credibility as long as we buddy up with people that still publicly chop heads off.
the federal deficit -- Republicans have completely abandoned their traditional fiscal conservitism. While in control of Congress, they have pretty much maintained status quo spending (though cutting some important social programs), dumped hundreds of billions into the sink hole in Iraq -- in which much of the money has disappeared, and passed the largest tax cuts in the history of the country. This is fiscal suicide. Either Republicans are fiscal cowards and incompetant or they are consciously trying to bankrupt the federal government. Regardless, a primary goal of Democrats needs to be to restore fiscal discipline and begin paying off the $8.5 trillion debt. If not, this deficit could drain our generation's pocketbooks for years to come or leave those in need without essential governmental services.
nuclear proliferation -- humans can't be trusted with these. I'm sure you've seen so far that the most salient issues are the ones that could result in the world being destroyed. This is one of them. This is also an issue that I'm, admittedly, not as informed as I'd like to be. Bottom line: We have something like 20,000 nuclear weapons. This is moronic. I'm confident that we don't need to dump our money into devising 300 different ways to blow up the world -- maybe just 2 or 3 will suffice. As the country with the most nuclear weapons, it is our moral obligation to enter into agreements in which we reduce the numbers as much as possible. I know this is vague, but I hope to elaborate on this further in seperate posts.
role of the U.S. military -- let's substantially reduce it. I don't think this country has been involved in a morally just conflict since World War II. If a dire threat to our national security emerges, I'm in favor of calling a draft like we did in WWII and fighting it out. I hate war. If a war must be fought, the young people in this country should be equally called upon to sacrifice. It sickens me that so many able bodied youth -- ages 18-30 -- support continuing the Iraq War but refuse to sign up and participate themselves. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and promote war when you're not waking up everyday wondering if it's your last.
A frequent theme you may here me reiterate: "pick up a gun, and pick a side." This motto is applicable to many issues of great importance to me. I guess it means you can't be neutral on a moving train. Various actions and events are transpiring in the world. Simply existing means that you are not an observor -- you are a participant. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
My next post will be my thoughts on the Democratic victory in Congress.
Inauguration
Welcome to Across the Aisle, a blog set up to explore the political issues of national and state-wide importance. Contributors come from both sides of the political spectrum and readers are encouraged to participate in discussion via the "comments" feature. In the parenthasis are participants' scores on the Political Compass test.
Current Contributors are:
From the (Center-)Right:
- Joshua Cheney ("Just NE of center")
Rochester Institue of Technology - Presque Isle, Maine
- Michael Perry (1.33, 2.40)
University of Maine at Presque Isle - Presque Isle, Maine
- Ryan Wiedmaier (-3.38, 1.49)
Bethany Bible College - Halifax, NS/Seattle, WA
From the Left:
- Joseph Bishop (-3.5, -5.95)
University of Maine at Orono - Presque Isle, Maine
- Bradford Bishop (-4.5, -5.95)
Fordham University - Presque Isle, Maine
- Christopher Raymond (-8, -3)
University of Maine at Presque Isle - Presque Isle, Maine
From the Center-Left:
- Lynn Erskine (-4.88, -1.54)
Bethany Bible College - Truro, NS/Somewhere, DE
- Bryan Fowler (-4, 0)
University of Maine at Presque Isle - Presque Isle, Maine
- Kyle Green (My guess is somewhere around -1,-1)
University of Southern Maine/University of Maine at Presque Isle/Berkley School of Music - Presque Isle, Maine
From the (Center-)Right:
- Joshua Cheney ("Just NE of center")
Rochester Institue of Technology - Presque Isle, Maine
- Michael Perry (1.33, 2.40)
University of Maine at Presque Isle - Presque Isle, Maine
- Ryan Wiedmaier (-3.38, 1.49)
Bethany Bible College - Halifax, NS/Seattle, WA
From the Left:
- Joseph Bishop (-3.5, -5.95)
University of Maine at Orono - Presque Isle, Maine
- Bradford Bishop (-4.5, -5.95)
Fordham University - Presque Isle, Maine
- Christopher Raymond (-8, -3)
University of Maine at Presque Isle - Presque Isle, Maine
From the Center-Left:
- Lynn Erskine (-4.88, -1.54)
Bethany Bible College - Truro, NS/Somewhere, DE
- Bryan Fowler (-4, 0)
University of Maine at Presque Isle - Presque Isle, Maine
- Kyle Green (My guess is somewhere around -1,-1)
University of Southern Maine/University of Maine at Presque Isle/Berkley School of Music - Presque Isle, Maine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
