Short term currency worries

The recent Sino-American dispute over the undervalued renminbi has caught DeTocque's wandering eye for the moment... Its domestic implications in US politics have not gone unnoticed. (See FT article here.)

The issue boils down to the fact the Senators, Congressmen, and Hank Paulson all want the Chinese currency to be worth a bit more (say about 10% more according to recently published reports) on the open market. Politicians may claim bipartisan support for a new Senate bill, but really anyone would support a bill that increases your constituents' exports...

By (admittingly) keeping the renminbi undervalued, the Chinese government has fueled a record trade surplus with the US in recent years (meaning the Chinese have exported about $233bn more to the US than they have imported from the US). So, the US is seeking to rectify that imbalance by legalizing US interference in the currency market -- the Americans would buy renminbi with dollars, thereby increasing the value of the renminbi and allowing newly, more wealthy Chinese consumers to more cheaply purchase US goods. Net result: Chinese buy more Fords, US bonds, Big Macs and iPods because their currency is worth more. Good for Joe Schmoe in Iowa, and good for his Congressman.

However, the Chinese government actually has a very good reason to keep the renminbi undervalued -- though their economy is going like gangbusters, per capita GDP is still tiny compared to the US. Now pretend for a second that all these Fords and iPods started flooding into China because Chinese purchasers opt for a relatively cheaper US car (of higher quality) over an absolutely cheaper Chinese-produced version (of still lower quality)... In other words, you average Chinese citizen could have never dreamed of a top-of-the-line US product and had always opted for the cheap-o domestic version. Suddenly, with the stronger renminbi, the US product is more within reach, so they go for it.

Two things result: 1. the Chinese inflation rate increases at a hurried pace for domestic AND imported goods, and many people are suddenly priced out of the market (read: disaster). Prices have gone up so fast and wages haven't kept pace... 2. No one but a local would ever want a Chinese company's computer. If their sales go down as consumers opt for American versions, Chinese computer company's profits shrink, and the economy slows.

With that, the Chinese just can't raise the value for practically humanitarian reasons -- the local level of the Chinese economy would be severely and catastrophically effected. The renminbi will gain value through nature market forces as the Chinese economy continues to get up to speed. American politicians should let it do so.

Second Wave Coming Soon

So guess where DeTocque is? Shrimps on the barbie anyone?
_____________________
We're now hitting a much-welcomed lull in the "I'm-running-for-President-and-I-will-raise-more-cash-than-you" sweepstakes. Now is the time for a collective sigh of relief.

But what lies ahead? Yup, it's the second wave of announcements!

If you're in your party's contest already, chances are you're a newbie (Obama), have never done this before (Rudy), an insufferable media-hog (Hilary), or dumb (McCain). Look for the Al Gores, the Newts, the Fred Thomsons to start jumping in.

Frankly, the second wavers look brilliant at this point. Here's why:

1. They've allowed the country to listen to the initial field from each party, and can assess where the early birds fall short. It's no secret that the Republicans do not have a super-star candidate that the hard-core faithful can get behind, so Newt and Fred may start looking to fill that void. Ditto for Al Gore: he's said a million times that's he's not running, until he realizes that Hillary is unelectable, and people are still gun-shy on Barrack.

2. The first rounders have raised tons of cash, true enough. But they're going to spend it all, and soon, to beat each other up. Look for the second wave to get in once everyone's coffers start to dwindle and the field thins a bit. This is particular precarious for the Republicans -- if anyone actually starts listening to a Mike Huckabee type (ie, a candidate with a mainstream message who just hasn't caught-on yet), the spending will go into overdrive to thwart him. And then, Enter His Newtness into a taxed out field.

3. The media cycle will give the second rounders much, much more coverage than the firsters. The reality-TV-channel that is FOXNews is probably so sick of giving Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul (whose name is perfect for the adult-film industry, by-the-by) legit air-time that they're dying to burn thousands of feet of film on the Newt.

4. And finally, let's face it -- you don't get burned out so much if you only spend 14 months running for Prez instead of 24...

Doolittle gets Done

The hits keep on coming for those with connections to the Jack Abramoff to-do. The latest to tiptoe to the edge of the high-dive is northern California Republican Congressman John Doolittle.

The story goes like this:

1. Doolittle's wife creates company as a fundraiser
2. Doolittle hires wife's company to raise funds for Doolittle's 2006 re-election campaign
3. Doolittle's wife charges said re-election campaign 15% of value of donations, nicely funding Doolittle's personal, as well as political, coffers.
4. Doolittle's wife company, and Doolittle himself, have a lot to do with Jack Ambramoff, who has contributed to Doolittle's re-election campaign AND hired wife's company
5. Feds get wise, start investigation
6. Doolittle resigns leadership post on House committee.

For a current resume of events, click here. For background articles, try here and here.

DeTocque wonders if this is the tipping point or just the wake of political corruption. Kudos to Republican House leader John Boehner for forcing Doolittle off the committee. But the larger questions remains: is Doolittle off the committee only because he got caught? Does this merely force the corrupt ones further underground? Will party leaders be forthright in admitting all cases of corruption and removing the guilty (or at least the ones with Virginia farm boys poking around their back yards)? Will the public stand for it?

We know that politicians generally act in concert with their level of nervousness about their chances for re-election. If the Republicans weren't facing such an uphill climb in 2008, would Boehner even care?

****

DeTocque is off for some loverly RnR to Central America as of tomorrow. Back on April 30.

Fundraising Alert on Romney

Regular readers of American DeTocqueville will recall this site's general distaste for the Mitt Romney campaign. And it's not because he's a Mormon. It's because he's a CEO who is more determined to win the presidency than to stand for his true convictions (and we don't know what those would be, because the Mitt is too busy changing his stance to appeal to the conservative base or the his state's population, depending on in which election he's currently running). Insert perfect hair joke here.

But wait! News from this week brings a whisper of potency from Camp Mitt in the form of $21 mil in campaign contributions, which surpassed John McCain's paltry $12 big ones. And that will get you a lot of funny underware. Apologies for cheap-shot Mormon joke.

At this time, DeTocque would like to make a bold prediction: this cold, hard, cash will get Mitt nowhere unless he uses it to take the bus. Based on the article linked above from the Politico.com, a good chunk of Mitt's funding comes from a Political Action Committee called Eagle PAC. While avoiding direct statements or obvious linkages to the Church of Later-Day Saints, Eagle PAC is essentially a fundraising bully to support Mormon candidates. Problem is, there really aren't that many Mormons, and DeTocque surmises that the politically active ones have already donated large sums. That's all they're willing to turn out their pockets for (and thus risk exposing their funny underware. Sorry again, can't help it).

Compare this with Barack Obama's cash haul, and Mitt is really in trouble. Barack is beginning to cultive a 100,000-strong base, small-donation, fundraising army, which is already giving him tons of cash. Mitt has a small base, large-donation, one-trick pony. Obama's people are nationwide and probably willing to put signs in their front yard. No one will see a Romney sign this side of the Great Salt Lake.

Romney might stick around through a primary or two because he can continue to pay his staff, but his donations might not have much staying power if all that cash doesn't produce a slow, steady uptick in his poll numbers.

GWOT no more

An article from last week's Military Times points out that Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee will no longer be using the term "Global War on Terrorism." In contrast to many of the reader comments at the end of the piece (which make for wonderful reading if you're in the mood to get first-hand evidence of Republican's knack for brainwashing constituents), DeTocqueville heartily applauds this effort, for one simple reason:

It's time we moved on.

The term "Global War on Terrorism" is a political catch-phrase designed to maintain terrorism's omnipresence in today's 24-hour news cycle. It is meaninglessly tossed around by undereducated elected government officials to strike fear into the hearts of those who cannot independently vet today's threat from Islamic extremism.

What's worse, you can't fight a war against something that can't sign a peace treaty.

When Von Clausewitz said that war is the continuation of politics by other means, this isn't what he meant. He was not referring to electoral politics, as is the case with the "War on Terror". He was addressing the failure of international diplomacy. We've had plenty of failure in diplomatic circles, and the time is right for our governments to stop using this generic term to perpetuate fear of imminent, mass casualty attacks amongst the general populace.

Ditching this term is but the first step in the American government owning up to its plethora of mistakes in what begain as a limited conflict against a small group of nomadic Islamic extremists. It is the adminstration's fault for taking UBL's bait in turning the issue into a global cause celebre. Hopefully this is an indication of a radical strategic overhaul, but no one hold their breath just yet...

Nancy's Greater Middle East Initiative

Nancy Pelosi is in the Middle East this week for one reason: to show American voters that the Democratic party favors dialogue with, rather than isolation of, one's diplomatic adversaries. As George Bush has been slow to take up the recommendations of the Iraq study group, Pelosi and her Dem counterparts have seized the opportunity to engage the Syrian government and elements of the Palestinian Authority. She's scheduled to stop in Saudi Arabia, too, but that's most likely because she was just in the neighborhood.

And let's face it, this is solid strategy. Suddenly, every farmer in South Dakota has become an expert on US foreign policy. At least they're starting to pay attention to it, anyway. When talking heads throw around "engage" vs. "isolate" strategies on meaningless, yet highly rated, political talk shows, the US voting public is more educated on these issues now than ever before. Pelosi knows W has awful approval ratings, particularly in the foreign policy arena, and she knows that W favors isolating one's "enemies." She's hoping that voters realize W's diplomatic strategy is poor, and her tour to Syria just might pay dividends at the polls come 2008.

The Cost of Winning

If you get a few minutes, DeTocque highly recommends the following article at RollingStone.com on Democrats' "real enemy" in winning elections -- their own consultants.

Holding the Dems back are: the excessive cost and payment structure of their consultants/pollsters vis-a-vis the Republicans' aides, the lack of new blood amongst Demcrat strategists (save Bill Clinton's staff), and the overreliance on shot-gun style network advertising.

Assuming the article's research is sound (lots of fudge-able finances are included), such assertions are nothing short of jaw-dropping. Though the article alludes to the answer, none of the candidates are interviewed to defend their repeated choices of, frankly, expensive losers. Which candidate will go out of his/her way to find that up-and-coming strategist without the losing record? How much of an effect does this really have on the democratic process? Why do candidates need thousands of ineffective stratgists? Do these advisers actually care who wins as long as they get paid?

A successful Democratic candidate must:
1. Ditch his current team. Most of the current candidates are recycling old hacks.
2. Restructure the compensation contract to avoid a high percentage commission on the media-buy (which, the article states, is slowly happening)
3. Have the courage to ignore the strategists' advice from time-to-time.

It's been clear for quite some time that Republicans are just plain better at winning elections (look at the recent presidential election record -- R wins in 04, 00, 88, 84, and 80; and whether they're better at actually governing is a different story altogether...), and maybe now we know why.

Hopefully this article turns a head or two within the Democrat establishment, it might just save their bacon.

Conviction is Power, Right or Wrong.

There's one aspect of Alberto Gonzales case that intreagues: George Bush's demeanor. (And in the interest of full disclosure, John Stewart made mention of this on The Daily Show the other night.)

After six years style over substance, Bush's act may be falling apart. With everyone and their dog believing that the AG won't last more than a few weeks (just look at the InTrade.com future contract on him), it's a pretty decent bet that you could win a few bucks by placing a wager on his near-term ouster.

But you'd never know that by what's written on Bush's defiant smirk at the press conference. It's been a well-known tactict of the administration to speak with assertive conviction on issues where it may lack the moral high ground, but the fact of the matter is that no one buys it any more. Even the highest ranking Republican members of the Judiciary Committee are casting long doubts on 'Berto, and we see no change in character from the White House.

What's next? So much of the voting public is dying for some Executive Humility, but it is difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. Why maintain the act? We're all pretty sure that 'Berto is hasta la pasta, so the public is collectively begging you, Mr. President, to admit this is a sketchy deal and just fire the guy.

The public wants to have confidence in its President. Bush's hardnosed approach to this doesn't inspire it.

Testify Under Oath.

Despite the assertions of a few talking political heads, it is not a brilliant strategy for the White House to offer to allow Karl Rove and Hariet Miers to "testify", but not under oath or with a transcript. Pundits think this somehow puts the Judicial Committee in an awkward bind. Quite simply, the Judicial Committee is well within its rights to subpoena Rove et al.

For arguement's sake, let's dive in a little deeper. Bush justifies his refusal by saying it sets a dangerous precedent for future White House aides to give honest advice to the President if their words are under constant scrutiny. Maybe so -- one tends to keep one's mouth shut if running one's mouth gets one in trouble. On the other hand, if one provides clear, upstanding advice devoid of petty partisanship or nefarious intentions, then one should not worry about telling the public about it. Therefore, if we use the transitive property DeTocq learned in 8th grade, in this situation we must conclude that Rove, Miers, Gonzales and the lot were involved in some conversations that would professionally embarrass them.

Too bad. These aides are public officials working by an administration elected by the people, for the people. We should be allowed to hear them.

Dirty Appropriations Tricks

The new funding bill put to Congress this week is a ghastly representation of politics' nastiness. There are so many problems with this legislation that it's difficult to know where to begin. Read an excellent Washington Post piece here.

It includes enough war funding only to keep the Iraq war up and running through next year (at $124 billion of your hard-earned tax payments). That's fine and well, and at least proves that the Democrats are really, really serious about ending this thing.

The bill gets ugly when the Democrats start enticing Congressional members who would otherwise oppose this appropriation and vote for more funding, with home-district earmarks. The inclusion of extraneous earmarks is contemptable in and of itself, but this tactic goes immorally further by compromising Congressmen's integrity. For example, if Johnny Representative favors continued Iraq engagement, he still might vote for the current fund-cutting bill because a Democrat slipped in an earmark worth several million bucks in economic assistance for his district. It becomes a choice between war ideology and easy cash to buy votes.

There are many differing options as to how much, and for how long, Congress should fund this conflict, but the addition of juicy home-district earmarks may compromise members of Congress who ideologically support continued military presence in Iraq to vote their conscience. In a time when ideology on the war is so important to American voters, votes on war funding should be separate appropriations bills where Representatives express their feelings on the war with no strings attached. This is politics at its worst.

We're not sure how, but opposing the war with such dramatic tactics could still dangerously backfire.

Confidence in Alberto?

President Bush today stated he had confidence in Alberto Gonzales, the embattled Attorney General.

In addtion to everything else that has completely sunk this White House, even Presidential support doesn't count for much any more. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld, who also received public administration support after his removal was already a done deal behind closed doors.

Managing war expectations

Today's news brings us the quarterly report on progress in Iraq... This is a Pentagon-produced, Congressionally-mandated report on the state of the war, and is often considered "propaganda," to use one law-makers phrase of choice. In the past, the report has painted a more glowing picture of the country than the ground truth would dictate.

Why, then, would the report issued today (and covering the last quarter of 2006) finally say, after so much semantic-related wrangling, that Iraq really is in a "civil war", and openly state that the last part of 2006 was the most violent in Iraq since 2003? The change in tone is striking.

The simple answer involves "managing expectations." It would not be too tough to believe that US military commanders (and the adminstration, for that matter), who just launched a controversial "surge" of some 30,000 troops, are hoping to set the bar as low as possible for the end of 2006 (conveniently in the "pre-surge" timeframe). Then, with even the remotest calming in Iraq, or the most modest calming of the situation during the first part of 2007, look for subsequent reports to point to improved conditions.

The Commander-in-Chief can then claim that the surge was the right strategy.

Democats on Iraq...

Are the Democrats opposing the Iraq war in the right way? How much can actually get accomplished by threating to cut off funding, either to US forces in Iraq, or those that are part of the "surge"?

If the Dems continue on their current trajectory, one wonders if they're tap dancing on that political mine field at little too heavily: The $20 in DeTocq's pocket says that there's no incentive to actually cutting cash to forces in the Iraq, because such a nix on appropriations would give the Republicans political cover. Think about it -- the Democrats vote to cut off funding, the US begins to bring forces home, Iraq slides further into all out chaos, and the Republican nominee in 2008 just hammers those vicious Congressional Democrats who killed the administration's plan to finally fix the whole thing.

On the other hand, there's no real effective way to oppose the war other than to cut off funding. The Dems can scream at the top of their lungs about what a misguided, mismanaged debacle this is, but Joe Voter wants to see something tangible from them... Given the country's mood and the type of historical precendent associated with a funding cut in Vietnam (where funds were actually cut to the South Vietnamese, not US soldiers), that probably resonates with people.

So where does that leave us? DeTocq bets on this: Exactly the same place where we were with the infamous "non-binding" resolution of a month or so ago. Dems will get really fired up and create tons of publicity about it, Republicans will pay lip service to opposing the idea, but secretly pray that the vote comes to pass. Then both sides will get embroiled in a drawn out debate on the "rules of the debate" which leads to exactly ZERO legislative action.

Yup, you heard it hear first -- the funding rhetoric just may be just that, rhetoric. Dems love the idea and would probably do it, but they will look for some sort of reason to not actually raise the issue on a technicality and then blame the Republicans, who would love nothing more than to have Democrats pass the bill.

Fun as usual, my friends.

Feeding the world? Or just St. Paul?

DeTocque hasn't heard much more on this besides an NPR piece this afternoon, but the subject bears mention: American food relief to the world's poorest nations.

The way the system currently works, USAID buys wheat, corn, and other agricultural goods from American farmers and then ships them around the globe. This system is relatively inefficient because of the higher costs and time delays involved in the purchase and transportation. The nasty little kicker is that this system provides millions, if not billions, of dollars in subsidies to America's farmers, who like to brag that they're "feeding the world."

Recently, USAID tabled a funding request to allow it to purchase one quarter of its food from local farmers in the respective poor countries. It's obvious that this would reduce the inefficiencies in cost and lag time by buying cheaper local products and quickly redistributing them to the local market, as well as give a direct income boost to third-world farmers. In short, by using some of USAID's food-assistance budget to buy local products, the American government could be feeding more people, doing it faster, and providing desperately-needed cash into third world economies. The NPR report even mentioned a wheat field in Africa that was left unharvested one year despite a bumper crop because no one could afford the goods. It wouldn't have if this proposal gets through.

If nothing else, what a wonderful P.R. opportunity for the U.S. -- after nearly 5 years of negative press, this is something the U.S. could hang its hat on. It is therefore astonishing that it's the Democrats who want to derail this extremely reasonable proposal. House Agricultural Committee chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) literally laughed into the microphone when asked about this issue and essentially called it a non-starter. Why? Well, his Minnesota farmers and truckers would lose a lot of income to those obviously evil, nasty, poor, starving third world wheat growers.

How ridiculous. Congressman Peterson has just proven that he is in no way interested in providing food aid to starving Africans, but is more interested in providing production subsidies to his inefficient farmers. Minnesota's farmers may be doing a little to feed the world, but a 25% reduction in their income could save many, many lives. Aid to America's farmers is being cloaked as aid to Africa. If Congressman Peterson really cared about the world's poor, he would encourage his farmers to leave their highly bloated, subsidized jobs that are a drag on the American economy by setting up retraining programs so that workers could learn new skills. The labor force would then be more sensibly reallocated to higher-paying more technical jobs.

Then we'd have a winning situation in both St. Paul and Lusaka. Instead, Congressman Peterson is taking the easy way out. Shame on him.

Ted Turner for budget responsibility!

Congratulations to CBS's 60 Minutes for airing an excellent piece on the current state of the American budget. Read the online version of the story here. In short, it focuses on David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, who is doing his best to raise public awareness of the gross inadequacies of the projected US government revenue and expenditure. Walker is on a tour of states scheduled to hold early presidential primaries in the hopes of getting somebody to pay attention.

DeTocq doesn't have the level of off-handed expertise to delve into the nitty-gritty on numbers, but suffice it to say that this issue deserves to be on par with the recent surge in public notarity for global warming. The difficulties faced by proponents of budget unsustainability roughly match up with those faced by the global warming crowd as recently as a few months ago: both problems are long-range issues which current politicians have little incentive to care about before their next general election, and the issues were very valid within the confines of their smallish wonky circles but faced problems of widespread public acceptance. The global warming problem has only received widespread public support since Al Gore's remarkable transformation into a genuine "cool" A-list celeb. (And who would have bet $100 that Gore would have had this cult superstar status in 2000? Can you say "landslide"?)

Who will be the budget's celebrity champion? Any politician who espouses lowering taxes but increasing spending is plainly lying to their constituency, so most of them are out. But somehow, somewhere, this issue needs its Al Gore -- a recognized leader with public credibility educate the masses. Though Walker, the comptroller, is doing an "enormous public service", as stated by Sen. Conrad (D-ND), the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, he is, quite frankly, a boring accounant who doesn't command much attention. How about a figure like Ted Turner? He's a respected businessman with history of public credibility through massive charity support.

Cheney, Musharraf and many mixed signals

Dick Cheney's surprise visit to Pakistan today sends mixed signals about how the White House is handling its quasi-ally.

The issue first began last month when Democrat-lead House passed a bill which would restrict US aid to Pakistan if the Bush administration could not verify that Pakistan was making all possible efforts to thwart the Taliban operating the country (read the bill here). Today, Cheney tried to use this threat as leverage when full-court pressing Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to, well, actually fight the Taliban (see an article on US spending in Pakistan here). But finally, White House Press Secretary oddly refused to outright support the VP, and even distanced himself from Cheney, saying, "President Musharraf is committed to winning this, and we are committed to working with him in this war on terror." (here)

The discord could simply be related to a lack of communication between Cheney's people and the White House or, due to the secrecy involved in the VP's trip, perhaps a leak of the meeting's talking points. Either way, it's an odd way to handle things (especially because it's not even clear that the Senate would choose to take up the resolution for debate).

The strangest aspect is that Cheney would actually threaten Musharraf that "the Democrats might cut off funding." Why use the threat if Cheney wouldn't support it? Would the administration personally not cut off funding if it had the choice? Are the Democrats some unstoppable, crazy force that the Pakistanis better get on board or who knows what those new nut jobs in the majority might do?!?! Cheney's looking for a way to force Musharraf into being more aggressive while trying to maintain the administration's personal relationship with Pervez. So they want to put the screws to him... but not too much. Push Musharraf too hard, and you might lose him altogether, so the best solution is to blame the Democrats.

The main US objection in all this is Musharraf's "truce" with the tribal elders in the Northwest Pakistani provinces, an area essentially still run by the Taliban. The unspoken deal is that Musharraf calls off the dogs and lets remaining Taliban elements survive relatively autonomously, and the Taliban won't bother the government.

How does this relate to Cheney (and House Dems) pushing Musharraf on terrorism? If you were Osama Bin Laden, where would you be hiding?

Carl Levin on Meet The Press.

Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi) is on Meet The Press as DeTocq types, and he's taking about a new Senate resolution which would "modify" US troops' mission in Iraq. Two things from the interview jump out: 1. The new resolution offered by the Democrats will have absolutely no effect on the functions of US forces; but 2. Senator Levin was willing to explain some of the behind-the-scenes political strategy.

1. Senator Levin explained that the resolution would state that US forces' mission would be "reduced" to:
-- only supporting counter-terrorism mission
-- training Iraqi troops
-- logistics operations.

DeTocq has news: That's exactly what US forces do now! Should that resolution pass, it might score some points with the public, but in reality it would have no effect on how the military operates. Every single function soldiers perform could easily be shoehorned into one of those broad topics -- every raid they conduct or security operation they run could fall under "counterterrorism"; every time they accompany the Iraqis on an operation, it would be "training"; and everything else would fall into the logistics category.

Furthrmore, the President could potentially exploit that language to say the Democrats passed a do-nothing resolution which is only playing politics.

2. When Tim Russert pressed Levin about remarks made by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) which practically dared Democrats to cut off funding for the troops, Levin responded with aplomb. He simply said that, first, Democrats don't want to further endanger American soldiers by not properly funding them -- he rightly said that Democrats wanted to avoid a Vietnam-type mistake; second, Levin frankly explained that Democrats didn't want to pursue a funding resolution because it would play right into the President's hand. Specifically, Levin said that such a bill would probably lose (because no Senator wants to be seen as "not supporting the troops"), and that the President would exploit such an attempt to protray the Democrats in a negative light.

Good for Levin for acknowledging that Senators and Presidents often play politics. All too often, public officials engage in haughty rhetoric to mask the underlying issues.

On to 08 (again? yes, already)

In the ever hastening race to start American presidential elections even earlier (who thinks George P. Bush will be throwing his hat in the ring in '12? Chelsea, anyone? DeTocq is busy scouting his friends' kids' pre-school classes for '36 candidates, by the way), it's no stretch to say that the American voting public has already been subjected to an onslaught of Presidential media attention.

How's this for the WHY: Everyone, save a few hardcore Evangelicals in Mobile, are dying for this term to be over. Just dying for it. The media might have finally run out of goofy Bushisms and is so sick of Iraq that they're out looking for the next story.

The benefit (silver lining?) is that it just might bounce a few of the jokesters out early. Take this guy with the perfect hair and goofy boxershorts -- Mitt Romney. Ruth Marcus does a nice piece in the Post (here) , where she paints a picture of a man who seems more concerned with winning the Presidency than actually standing for a conviction or two. Abortion is a tricky subject, but Romney walks the tightrope so carefully that it's transparent. What's wrong with standing to be judged?

When politicians, as the Mittster does in this article, are over 50 years old and use terms like "evolved" on a core issue relating to their moral character, 95% of the time it means "changed to make me more electable." With the obnoxiously early start of the election, journalists have just that much more time to pour over records and transcripts and bounce some of the hair-and-smile-but-no-substance guys BEFORE they raise enough money to be serious contenders.

***

UPDATE: On 27 February, Slate.com does a good article which supports the post above and and explains why Romney's so easily willing to flip flop: he's the consumate CEO who will alter his position at the drop of a hat to push his product. But there's the rub: people vote for Presidents because they want count on their officials to maintain the same point of view both before and after an election, not because said official is deft at altering his opinion to please the constituent, donor, or policy maker of the day. Good thing Romney is polling at 7 percent right now, let's stick a fork in him.

Unity08

If you get a few minutes, go check out Unity08. Normally skeptical of these types of groups, DeTocqueville must admit that the flaw isn't obvious. And proceding skeptically, that would be a hesitant endorsement...

The concept is intreaguing, even: Select one ticket (of a field of contenders) for the 08 race with a centrist Republican and a centrist Democrat. Who you could find to shun their party is another question altogether, but bear with them... This crowd, lead by the always-dashing Sam Waterston of "Law and Order" fame, doesn't exactly have the star-power of Bono-pitching-DATA, but it's a start.

The main problem Unity08 faces is probably from the Dems -- the party muscle is so desparate to get the White House in 2008 that they'd stop at nothing (including walking all over this little 527) to get there. The other potentially mitigating factor is Candidate Obama -- the case could be made that he's as centrist and "outsider" as you could get, so the "need" for a Unity08 style group wouldn't be that large.

However, if the race ended up with Dick Cheney squaring off against Hillary, look for the Unity08 crowd to pick up tons and tons of cash.

Edit: Unity 08 got a good mention in the Washington Post today, Feb 25 by columnist David Broder (here).

What's all this about Iran?

A few brief points about the recent ascertion that "Iran" is supplying weapons to Shi'a groups in Iraq for use against US servicemen, and why the US is starting to make a big deal about it:

1. Is the "evidence" real?
-- Most likely. In light of the WsMD scandal of faulty intel pre-Iraq, the press has been correct to question the Bush administration's assertions about this. However, it's also in light of the Iraq justification that the Americans are making damn-well sure that they have such a serious accusation is right this time. Or, probably more correctly, they're making damn-well sure that they THINK they have it right. After all, Iran is going to deny it either way, right? Wait, we've been here before...

2. So is this weaponry coming all the way from the Iranian top?
-- Could be, but DeToc guesses it's unlikely. Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Grand Ayatollahs generally like to maintain a degree of plausible deniability between themselves and some of the more nefarious elements of their govenment. Maybe it was done with a wink and a nod and a say-no-more, but such weaponry is just as likely coming from a few Qods Force commanders with solid ties into Iraq Shi'a community. The Iranians probably won't ask too many questions, so everyone goes home happy.

3. Is the US making these charges now as a prelude to an Iran invasion?
-- ARE YOU KIDDING? Conspiracy theorists will all point in this direction, but, frankly, even beginning to contemplate an invasion of Iran is so insane that even Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and a four drugged-up monkeys throwing darts at a world map wouldn't advocate it. Think about it -- an extremely overstretched military fighting two wars, staunch opposition to the war at home, and ongoing diplomatic efforts with Tehran all collectively shout: NO WAY on this one.

4. Is the US doing this to keep Iran on its toes?
-- Ah ha. Here's where DeToc puts his $20. North Korea just eeked out a sweet energy deal when it shut down its nuke program, the Europeans might be going soft in the Iran nuke negotiations, and the US is pretty frustrated in Iraq, so DeToc surmises that this is a case of making relatively sound, if "unprovable", accusations against the Iranians to send a message that a) "we know you're in Iraq," so stop it, and b) you're not getting as cushy a nuclear deal as Pyongyang. Furthermore, it might be an attempt to rally the Euros to take a tougher line at the negotiating table with Tehran later this year.

Stay tuned, 'cause this one's just starting to get fun!