Morning Coffee (115)

Greetings. In the interest of keeping this edition the MORNING Coffee, I’ll get right to it.

People Suspect Vote Worthless; People Right All Along:

A little boy named Florida wanted to hold his Halloween party earlier than the rest of his class, as did a little girl named Michigan. The rest of the class said that if they could not, and if they defied the class, well, then all the candy they got would be taken away and none of it would count in the Big Candy Challenge after the party date. Florida and Michigan went ahead and held their party earlier, but some attendees were disappointed in the selection of activities; what one would normally expect at a Halloween party wasn’t there. At Michigan’s party, there was only one activity to choose from because the organizers, in cahoots with the rest of the class, wouldn’t allow any other activities from which to choose. Nevertheless, the party went off fairly well, and the kids got their candy. But remember…the candy can’t count.

Sounds absurd doesn’t it? Well it is; it’s a parody of a very real situation. And this situation provides a wonderful example of why the whole primary/caucus system is broken. Worse, it’s stupid. Because the Democratic parties in Michigan and Florida wanted to hold their primaries earlier than Iowa, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) told them that their delegates would not count. Thus, peoples’ votes in those two states do not count. If party leaders are miffed, they can make your vote meaningless.

But now, the nomination for the Democratic candidate is a close race. So some people want the Michigan/Florida contests to count. There’s talk of a redo. Or a mail-in vote. Who knows. But some people still don’t want the delegates from those states to count, because they feel slighted that the party officials from those states would dare defy the mighty DNC.

Surely I needn’t point out to you why this whole situation is obscene. Americans are being denied the right to voice their opinions in the electoral cycle because of the hurt feelings of a bunch of party hacks. Imagine, Democrats, the people who “look out” for the little guy, the common man, the downtrodden, messing with your vote because they’re offended. Look at it this way, they’re just relieving you of the burden. How the hypocrites can sleep at night, I’ve no idea. But it’s worse than something as simple as hypocrisy. Because the votes from Michigan and Florida would largely benefit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party is divided as to whether or not those votes should count. Obama supporters would rather they not, but they can’t just come out and say it. Hillary supporters want them to count, but they can’t come out and say why since she agreed to not campaign in those states along with Obama. So…the DNC goes back on its word, looks weak and inept, AND ends up giving support to Hillary...all in the spirit of Democracy.

Don’t get me wrong…the problem isn’t just one for Democrats…

A major problem I have with our present system of nominating candidates is that those states who vote later in the election cycle risk having their citizens’ votes count far less than those states who vote early. For example, Pennsylvania doesn’t hold their primary for another six weeks. The Republican nomination has already been sorted out, so Republicans in PA have no voice in selecting the Republican candidate. It’s surely possible that Clinton could withdraw by then (though highly unlikely in my opinion), thus Democrats in PA have no voice in selecting their candidate. How is this fair? The vote of citizens in Iowa and New Hampshire count far more than do the votes of citizens in Pennsylvania. Are people okay with this? I really do not care if Iowa is a microcosm of Middle America. That doesn’t mean anything to me. I want your vote to count as much as mine, and mine as much as a guy in Des Moines. It sounds like our political parties, of which there are only two viable ones, are saying to us, the citizenry, “all votes are equal, but some are more equal than others.” How Orwellian.

Ethics for Dummies:

Yesterday (Tuesday for the unemployed who lose track of such things) the House of Representatives voted to create an outside ethics office, which is part of Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) focus on ethics, etc, etc. This office, which will be called the Office of Congressional Ethics, will have the power to investigate ethical misconduct by Congressmen and women. It will not have the authority to do so in the Senate, however.

I’m actually torn over this; not in principle, but in practice. In principle, our Representatives and other government officials need some sort of sound ethical oversight, which in and of itself is extremely unfortunate. More on that later. But in practice, I’m afraid that Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is right when he says, “It simply adds another layer of bureaucracy on top of an already broken system.” I’m not certain more bureaucracy, and thus more government, is the right solution. And are they telling us that this new system, in which the Speaker appoints three members and the Minority Leader appoints three members, cannot be corrupted? I’m not convinced.

The creation of this office gives me yet another opportunity to discuss term limits. As I mentioned, it is indeed unfortunate that our elected officials are in need of such stern ethical oversight. One would hope (naively) that these people, with whom we entrust great power, would exercise some restraint. But this isn’t the case. As the Elliot Spitzer controversy is once again illustrating, powerful people are frequently hypocrites and frequently believe that they are above the law. I suspect that the longer one serves in a position of power the greater the likelihood that they “cut corners” here and there. This behavior eventually snowballs into bigger ethical failings. I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive study done on this, which compares corruption and unethical behavior in junior representatives with that of senior representatives. An objective study would likely be impossible for a number of reasons, but were it possible I think that it would prove my theory. If it did, then all the more reasons to have term limits. In fact, from my perspective, the only reason not to have term limits is because of a general refusal to relinquish power. Indeed, their reasons would be that they have such a desire to serve that they will do so as long as they are elected. However, the old fashioned check on elected officials, the voter in the official’s district, is no longer that effective. One could, as I do, argue that it is distinctly ineffective. In 1998, 401 of 435 Congressmen of the House sought reelection and all but six were reelected. That is a 98% incumbent success rate for you math geeks. The linked article goes into detail about the “perks” of office for those seeking reelection. Fascinating stuff, really. And all the more reason to have term limits. Constituencies feel that they’re getting the best product, but the system is heavily skewed to favor products already on the market. There’s little chance for fresh ideas and proper turn over to permeate the system. Instead, we’re stuck with stagnation because the incumbent has ample opportunity to control the pace of the fight. Remember, the above figures are for the whole nation, not just a few districts. The incumbent-centric problem is endemic.

The linked article, in its last few paragraphs, argues that the incumbent problem isn’t such a big deal because there is a steady turn over which takes place over the course of several election cycles. I do not find this sufficient reason to allow unlimited terms. Turnover thus takes place at a glacial pace and does nothing to limit those who could be classified as “political animals”, those being supremely efficient at manipulating pubic opinion (and thus being reelected) and dodging ethical constraints.

There is no better argument for term limits other than the simple fact that term limits has such little support among elected officials. Do we not find that slightly curious; perhaps a little self-serving and at odds with the interests of the electorate?

Word of the Day: Coprophilia (noun): An obsessive interest in feces. Editor’s Note: We should amend this definition to include “political news.” Today’s WoD sponsored by a loyal reader. For only 25 euro, you too can sponsor a WoD entry.

On This Day in History: Coca-Cola is sold in bottles for the first time (1894). Moscow becomes the capital of Russia again (1918). St. Petersburg held that status for the previous 215 years. FDR first addresses the nation as President, which became his first Fireside Chat (1933). Scores of people born; a number died.

“It is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.” – Marcus Aurelius.

Morning Coffee (98)

Mother of the gods, it’s cold out. Zero, to be exact. And that’s with no wind. It is days like today that make me think about the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War. Those guys had it bad when it came to weather (and the other obvious rigors being a battle and all). Men took to urinating on their rifles to free up the moving parts, which had not-so-conveniently froze. It’s days like today, with temperatures miserable yet far warmer than at the Frozen Chosin, that I am in awe of the job those men did there and in other famously cold battles.

Onto another steaming cup o’ Joe, which only half of you will half-read.

GOP Debate (Boca Raton, Florida):

What wasn’t cold was last night’s Republican debate. In fact, this debate was quite warm. It had none of the badgering that the last Democratic debate had (and I apologize for forgetting to watch that and report on that debate). The following will be a brief recap of the events of last night along with some commentary where appropriate.

At 2059, just as the lead-in program was wrapping up, the host introduced the debate by saying, “Now on this the 1,XXX (I don’t remember the figure) since the declaration of “mission accomplished” in Iraq…” we have the Republican debates, etc, etc. I didn’t really get the last portion of the debate introduction by this guy, because I was a bit perplexed as to why the number of days since that declaration was important in this context. It is possible that MSNBC was drawing our attention to the war.

Obviously, the economic stimulus package that was agreed upon yesterday was a big topic of discussion last night. Of course, every candidate that was asked was supportive of Bush’s plan in this case, but they also said that they didn’t think enough was being done. Romney, McCain and Giuliani all said this. The other’s weren’t asked, but I’m guessing Huckabee’s answer would have been the same, and Ron Paul would have said similarly before going off on a tirade about the US spending too much money because of our having to support an empire all around the globe. This gives an indication as to how predictable the debate was, in general; and particularly when the candidates were asked about Clinton or Democratic policies. It was pretty clear what their answers would be before the questions were even asked in this case. I did find it interesting that Obama wasn’t mentioned really; just Clinton.

In keeping with the economy theme, John McCain mentioned that the Wall Street Journal had polled a bunch of economists about who would be the best for the economy, and the majority of them indicated that they thought that McCain would do the best in managing the economic situation. I’ve looked briefly, and I cannot find a source to confirm this, though one would hope a candidate wouldn’t make such a bold claim while citing a respected news journal. But McCain did admit prior to this debate that his understanding of economics was his weakest attribute, and during (and before and likely after) the debate he rattled off a list of names of people that he would rely on to help his understanding and to help shape his economic policy. This “name dropping” is somewhat disconcerting. I like the idea that McCain acknowledges that he has a weakness, and that he is comfortable enough of a leader to approach people for guidance on an issue (unlike some other candidates). But at the same time, one has to wonder about this to a degree. There seemed to me to simply be too many “dropped” names for comfort.

The subject of the Iraq War was then broached for a time. Each candidate said mostly the same thing (that they supported the surge for example) even if they were slightly disingenuous. I find it funny that each candidate now vehemently defends themselves about their having supported the surge a year ago. “I DID support the surge and I’m mad that you would suggest otherwise despite ample evidence that I either didn’t support it or said nothing about it.” Save McCain, I don’t think any of them have any credibility when it comes to criticism of the war effort. But Romney had a good line when he said that it is “audacious and arrogant” of Hillary Clinton to suggest that Democrats are responsible for the surge and its success because of their insistence to immediately withdraw troops; in essence, the surge was implemented and succeeded ONLY because Dems wanted out. That’s not a logical suggestion at all. It’s pandering. It’s trying to get credit for something that you previously criticized, but do so in a way that you don’t look like a flip-flopper (I hate that term).

Tim Russert then asked each candidate if the Iraq War was the right thing to do and was worth the cost in blood and treasure (another overused term). No candidate save Ron Paul said that it wasn’t the right thing to do. But the question was remarkably inane. No candidate is going to say that any war is worth the cost in blood. It’s just not going to happen. Especially not about a war that is so unpopular. An argument can be made that the invasion was the right thing to do (since most Americans supported it at the time) because that’s more of a philosophical issue. “We thought this, so we had to do that.” But equating its worth in terms of numbers of deaths is a very subjectively quantitative trial. What the war is worth to individual Americans in terms of “blood and treasure” is very widely varying. In an interview after the debate, Russert said that each candidate thought the Iraq War was worth the cost in blood and treasure, and he found that telling and suggested that these sentiments would play heavily in the general election. Russert’s comments are perfidious. Not one candidate specifically said that in response to his question.

At this point in the debate (2130) Brian Williams, before taking a commercial break, sternly “reminds” the audience that there is to be no applause or cheering or outbursts during the debate. At first I thought this to be sort of stupid, but then I thought of sitcom laugh tracks. The crowd reaction skews the TV audience’s response to a particular candidate. It’s the nature of our social interactions; we want to like what others like.

After the commercial break, Huckabee is given a chance to defend his support of the “Fair Tax.” He does so eloquently. I’m not going to get into a discussion of it here, because it’d take forever. But the big selling point for Americans is that the Fair Tax would “abolish the IRS.” That wording, true or otherwise, is selected for a reason. The IRS doesn’t exactly have a reputation as a benevolent entity, so who wouldn’t support is abolition. Me for one. I do not think it wise to actually abolish the organization in the literal sense, which is what the supporters of the Fair Tax suggest. But I also don’t think that’s what they mean. I think they mean a massive reorganization, perhaps a rewrite, of our tax laws. The emphasis should be on that issue, not the abolition of the IRS, literally or figuratively. Someone is going to have to administer the new tax laws (fair ones or not). There’s going to have to be an agency to do this. Why not the appropriately named IRS? And the term “Fair Tax.” Who would be against such a thing? It’s like pro-choice and pro-life. Notice that they’re not anti-life and pro-oppression? Same thing with the “Fair Tax”; it is named as such to suggest that other taxes are inherently unfair. True or not, I dislike this name, and I dislike its supporter’s use of benign propaganda.

The candidates then had the opportunity to discuss some National Catastrophic Fun for catastrophes that aren’t covered by our insurance companies. You know, like Hurricane Katrina. Since insurance companies refuse to cover so many things anymore, the idea here is to create a massive fund that would help those who were struck with these catastrophes. Sounds great. Giuliani is for such a thing and McCain is against. I think the idea is stupid, and it does nothing but give insurance companies a free pass, just like they already have with flood coverage. Why not force these companies to do what they’re supposed to do, that be insure people. Tell them that they’re going to cover X or they will lose their operating licenses. These companies make billions of dollars a year. This to me is similar to socialized health care and just adds another government group to oversee another program that should be done by the private sector.

Our moderators then moved the discussion onto the issue of climate change. McCain has openly acknowledged that climate change/global warming is real and is a threat. Pretty much no one else on the GOP side has. Giuliani defended his stance against establishing caps on carbon output in the US, saying that China and India would not be similarly restricted and this would be give their economies an unfair advantage. At first thought, I agreed with this. Why not? It sounds unreasonable that we should be limited while our biggest competitor is not. But upon further reflection, I think it’s a copout. We’re the United States of America. Not China. To hold ourselves to the same standards as a Third World nation is appalling. We should be the trend setters of the world, and should hold ourselves, in our further advanced state, to higher standards, while continuing to make gains economically on the rest of the world. I see no reason why we can’t cap our emissions and continue to grow our economy. To equate caps with failure is insulting. We put a man on the moon in less than a decade. We should instead view it as an opportunity to prove our scientific and technological mettle once more. I do not think that the conversation on global warming is over, as McCain does, but I think that is moot. Shall we converse and argue and debate until it’s too late? Or shall we reform ourselves, making our nation better in the process, and find out that we were all being alarmists after all? I’d rather the latter. Besides, if we cap our emissions and right our economy and throttle the world with our economic might, who will than have the moral capital?

The debate wound down from there. There was some humorous banter between Huckabee and McCain about McCain’s age and each of their action hero supporters. Huckabee made a comment about Romney’s use of his prodigious wealth on his campaign and how if he (Huckabee) were nominated it would thus secure Romney’s son’ inheritance. But McCain was then questioned about his electability, because some conservatives view him as a “maverick” since he has bucked his party on several occasions. McCain delivered a good speech for a moment about how he respects everyone on the stage and would make friendships with them and people across the aisle, and then answered with one of the most poignant lines of the night. In response to that question, he assured Americans that he “would put his country ahead of his party.”

Overall, I was pretty please with the debate. I was glad that the Republicans didn’t follow the Democrats’ lead turn the debate into a blood bath. They were congenial, even collegiate at times. The questions they asked each other seemed to (probably falsely) be asked with genuine concern and inquiry. Ron Paul even did alright, and wasn’t under constant attack by his peers (no one notes that Paul is older than McCain, by the way). I think that Romney won the debate and that might have secured him a victory in Florida’s primary (he and McCain were in a statistical tie in most polls there). A commentator made the comment that Romney looks terrible when under attack, and no one attacked him, so he had a chance to shine. McCain might have had his worst showing, but was still overall decent. Giuliani made some great points, but was sort of just there. Huckabee was much the same as Guiliani. Paul probably lost, but mostly because he didn’t get to say much.

The congenial nature of this debate will help whatever Republican secures the nomination. The Democrats are ripping each other’s throats out and it’s disturbing to Americans. It might turn off middle-left voters.

I counted, perhaps in error, only three utterances of Reagan’s name by the debaters. A far cry from the 85,000 in the last debate (exaggeration).

And thus ends the Morning Coffee’s attempt at punditry.

Word of the Day: Disheveled (adjective): In loose disorder; disarranged; unkempt; as, “disheveled hair.”

On This Day in History: Claudius, the first Roman emperor born outside of Italy, is accepted as emperor by the Roman Senate after a night of negotiations (41 CE). Henry VIII secretly marries Anne Boleyn (1533). Events leading up to both these incidents were mentioned in recent editions of the Coffee. Thailand declares war on the US and UK (1942). Soviet Union ends state of war with Germany (1955). St. Dwynwen’s Day, the Welsh celebration of love.

"The American Marine First Division has the highest combat effectiveness in the American armed forces. It seems not enough for our four divisions to surround and annihilate its two regiments. (You) should have one or two more divisions as a reserve force." – Mao Zedong’s orders to Chinese General Song Shilun during the Korean War.