Bryan’s Web (.net)

Woah it’s November? If anyone still reads this, please e-mail me. That way, I’ll know to update it.

I got some comments on my last post, so here’s my reply:

On the plan:

It wouldn’t improve Iraq. It’s not a plan to improve Iraq. It’s a plan to help the people who really just want to live their lives without the pain that’s currently happening there, and are willing to give up their home to do so.

The problem with improving the police departments there is that democracies and organizations such as police departments that care about civil liberties and are there to help the people only work when an overwhelming majority of the people are willing to abide by those rules. If 50% of all Americans decided to start going 100mph on all freeways, there’s no way that even a large group of police could enforce the law. Historically, the only way for the anarchy over there to end immediately would be for a decisive, overwhelming totalitarian force to seize control and impose order through fear. However, that’s no help for anyone- least of all the inhabitants of Iraq. The only other way I can see this ending is just burning itself out- waiting until you have the overwhelming majority needed to support a democracy. Unfortunately, given the state of things over there I would predict this would take at least one or two decades, probably more. And that’s WITH international help.

So it wasn’t a feasible plan, and I said that. It’s far from perfect, and I know that. If it were a bill it would never become law, and yes as Zack mentioned there would be protests, etc. But the point was that I don’t see an end to the Anarchy coming soon, and there are some people over there just trying to live their lives that could probably use our help. I’d liken it to something like Roosevelt’s New Deal- a lot of it was unconstitutional, but it was designed as a stop-gap measure to simply help people while things worked themselves out.

On the candidates:

McCain is desperately trying to get at the niche that Bush found in 2000. But he’s not coming off as a true Bush successor, because he’s not. At least, I really don’t think he is. In 2000 he was much more moderate, so his pandering is so blatant that everyone can see what he’s trying to do. The moment that he agreed to give the commencement speech at Jerry Falwell’s college, people knew he was making a run for the White House. The ironic thing is that, with so many candidates in the field and none a true front runner I think he would have done much better if he’d just stuck to his 2000 platform. For Mitt Romney, I think that given how particular the religious right can be, that he’ll take a big hit when they discover he believes that Jesus walked in America. I still think Giuliani is too unknown amongst the republicans, and is still floating in a 9/11 balloon. And that won’t win him the election. Once that wears off and republicans really hear about his record, he’ll take a big hit. And I think this Fire Fighters ad is the first of many that will hurt him. And honestly I don’t know enough about Ron Paul yet to have an opinion.

I think that what hurt Gore in 2000 was that people saw him as too stiff and not likable, and that he had been stuck behind Clinton in the VP office and so was unable to bring a level of urgency and spirit to his different-from-Clinton campaign… the impression was more like “I’ve got this idea about a lock box, and I just thought of it now”. And yet he still won the popular vote. Even with Lieberman as a VP. Well in 2008 there is a lot of difference there- for one, Hillary is obviously going to be more associated with the Clinton name than anyone else. Also, Al’s loosened up, become personable (you know the whole “I’m the former next president joke?”, appearances at rock concerts, sold-out slide shows in sports stadiums, and a movie. All of which are even better than playing a saxophone on late-night tv.), and has really been out there promoting this issue of climate change and energy conservation that in the last few years has really seeped in to the public consciousness. Whether that’s due in part to his actions or not is irrelevant, because he’s there to ride the wave. But you’re right, there are people that wouldn’t vote for him, some simply because he lost the 2000 election. But that’s where Obama comes in- Obama brings a bunch of votes along with him, and with Obama in the VP slot he’ll bring even more votes, because the worst thing that Obama has so far is the impression that he’s too inexperienced to be Commander In Chief… and this has caused a lot of would-be Obama supporters to slide over to the Hillary camp.

I’d also like to point out the irony in the conservative phrase “Don’t trust the government to do anything the private sector can do.” - it seems, at least to me, that lately Bush has been giving the federal government as much power as he can figure out how to give, mostly under the banner of “Terror Prevention”.

Read This

Seriously, what’s wrong with people? First they shoot an Iraqi journalist on his way to work, then they come over and shoot him in the head while he’s on the phone with his Mom saying he’s okay? And it’s not just this one incident, either- You hear about civilians, contractors, etc. getting murdered all the time in Iraq. Not to mention Africa. When it gets to the point that people who just want to live their life are getting killed for no reason, we’re way beyond war, and way beyond setting up a democracy. The problem with a democracy is that it’s run by the people, so the people have to WANT it. Sure, you’ll still have crime- perhaps even organized crime- but not the Anarchy you see here.

So I suggest a totally unreasonable plan that I just made up- called the Get The Hell Out plan. This would be a plan where the western countries that have room to spare (like, say, Canada) get together and offer a one way ticket for people in these countries that just want to Get The Hell Out. Give them a House, and a job building houses, neighborhoods, etc. for other arriving countrymen. Restrict their travel for, about 7 years or so to only intra-national travel. This might sound barbaric but it would hopefully act to stem any sort of crime/terror flow that might seek to take advantage of the system, though I wouldn’t expect abuse in that way, because most of those organizations can sadly afford plane tickets. Make sure they know everything it entails before hand, and then airlift them over for free once they agree. In their situation, I would certainly give up a few personal freedoms for a few years in order to Get The Hell Out. It’s like signing up for the Army- you sign a contract saying you’ll get paid in exchange for doing what we say for a few years, but instead of flying to a war zone they’ll be flown away.

And yes, while writing this I realize that it sounds an awful lot like indentured servitude, which if you recall didn’t turn out so well the last time we tried it. BUT the difference here is that my plan would be out of kindness, not greed. And it would, of course, be completely voluntary. And I would HOPE that with the abolition of slavery, the Geneva convention, and all of this “morality” that keeps coming up in candidate speeches that such a government-run program could be adequately regulated. But then I think of Katrina and Abu Ghraib and say to myself “nope, probably not.” Oh well, I did say the plan was totally unreasonable.

PS, re: the candidates: McCain flew too close to Bush the son and his wings melted. I knew he was going to go right to try to secure the nomination but at some point I would have hoped that his pandering would end (especially when it wasn’t working) and that his former more-moderate self, the guy from 2000, would step in and say “Why am I trying so hard to look like a Bush devotee when I didn’t like his policies and America doesn’t either?” As for the Democrats, it’s looking less and less like Al Gore is going to jump in and announce during the convention, but I still think there’s a chance of it happening. And I still think a Gore/Obama ticket would be really hard to beat. But if Gore stays out… man I really hope we end up with Obama/Clinton rather than Clinton/Obama.

…When did that happen? I’m 25 now? Argh… I’m getting old.

…I blame George Bush…

Anyway, sorry for the EXTREME lack of updates. Hopefully my schedule will lighten up some when we go beta, which should be… I’ll say this month. Don’t know if I can get in trouble for being more specific than that, or not. In the meantime, though, I’ve been having fun when possible. Since my camera broke in Hilton Head last summer, the only pictures I have are from other people, whoose facebook galleries I raided to bring you the newest collection on the side there. Most of the pictures are from my Birthday party… before I got really drunk. Nobody wants to see the pictures of after I got really drunk. As for people down here: Anil’s the indian kid and Mark’s the guy in the hat. Zack and Gloriana are holding hands in like every picture they’re in, and Lauren and her boyfriend Matt make a few appearances, along with Sherwood and Durfee.

I can’t wait to go back to Columbus around the 4th of July and see everyone, except apparently Roshan who seems to leave town whenever I come home, the Jerk.

Anyway, that’s it for tonight; I’ll write more once I have time to actually do things outside of work again, which means Beta.

Even though it’s February of 2007, everybody it seems is talking about November of 2008 already. So here’s my $0.02.

First, lets take a look at the Republican candidates. Two of them stick out in my mind - Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Giuliani seems like a good candidate, though because he’s a republican I believe he’ll be held back somewhat by his liberal stances on some issues, including Gay’s rights. After all, George W. Bush’s republicans are a very, very conservative bunch and Giuliani is secular. But if Giuliani wins the backing of the RNC then the conservatives will have no choice but to vote for him… They won’t vote democratically. The more severe and immediate problem is that, though Giuliani has worked on a national level as a US Attorney, his national appeal as a policy maker is based upon his final months as Mayor of New York, from 9-11 until he left office. And after that he fought cancer, which adds to his appeal but not enough to overcome his 5-year absence on the national stage… well really he’s been absent from every stage- we haven’t really heard from him recently. In fact, I would say he’s not unlike a “Republican Obama” in that he has appeal, but he’s a bit too revolutionary to beat the other candidate in his party.

Which brings me to John McCain - the “other” republican candidate. Though I don’t really think “other” has a place in that sentence. For all intents and purposes, McCain is the republican candidate. After a failed bid for the republican nomination in 2000 he remained the Sr. Senator from Arizona, but never really left the National spotlight. Because of this he has an enormous fundraising capability, and the national-player bonafides that assure his nomination. Not to mention his Vietnam war experience- including his capture and torture- which he can point to for issues like Guantanamo Bay and… pretty much everything war-related. After losing the 2000 nomination to Bush, McCain has been one of Bush’s sharpest republican critics, and one of the more liberal republicans in general. About a year ago he started scrambling to back the Bush camp as much as possible in order to secure the Republican primary, but once he wins that you’ll see him become a very middle of the road republican - without directly attacking Bush - in order to grab as many independents as possible in the General election. He’s a strong enough candidate on war issues and is central enough that I won’t be surprised when he picks up a chunk of Democrats as well. Of course, this depends on the Democratic nominee…

…where the field is slightly wider open. Pulling ahead early is New York Senator Hillary Clinton, whom I’ll sum up as a candidate by saying: She’s not New York enough for New York, and she’s not Arkansas enough for Arkansas. By that I mean that I can definately see McCain taking Arkansas, and she definately will lose New York running against Rudy Giuliani. Though, because of her name recognition in both places and her ties to her husband I can see her winning either one or the other, depending on the Republican candidate. She’s heavily favored by the “Old Democrats”- the Carter-era planners that got lucky with Bill in ‘92. This means that she has lots large coffers upon which to draw, and is probably enough to give her the Democratic nomination. What she’s missing is the support of independants that just want a change from Bush, though she might be able to get some during the general campaign, and the support of the next generation of Democrats, the so-called “Net-Roots Bloggers” (of which I suppose I am one), and their surprisingly large fundraising capability. She’s also going to get a large percentage of the women’s vote, though depending on what Obama does she might lose some of the support of minority women. However her biggest setback might be that she’s just not the politician that Bill was. I can also see her as too proud to accept a potential rival as VP, and so her pick will probably be someone we’ve never heard from before, or have heard very little about… “Old Democrats”- not much help there. Bottom Line: McCain’s a better candidate than Hillary, and will win if he faces her in a general election.

Next up is the Lincolnesque Barack Obama, the Junior Senator from Illinois. He’s got the minority vote, and the vote of people that want a change (though some might find the change offered by Obama is too radical), charisma, plenty of hype (including books), and some stong ideals about the way that government should work. He also has fairly good support from the “Net-Roots” Democrats, a great staff, and politcal smarts. But what he doesn’t have is, as everyone has said by now, experience. He made a jump to the national stage with a speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, but most feel that a jump from state legislature to junor senator to President of the United States is a path with too few stepping stones. “And besides”, they’ll say, “he’s young enough to be around again in four or eight years, and he’ll be a much stronger candidate then.” And that pretty much sums him up.

Last but not least we have Al Gore. Now, I know that he’s been out of politics for a while and hasn’t made any official move for ‘08 yet, but he will. In fact, James Carville (lead strategist of Bill Clinton’s ‘92 campaign) has said “He’s going to run, and he’s going to be formidable. If he didn’t run, I’d be shocked.” For more, see this article and this video. Basically, though he’s lost some (not all) support from the “Old Democrats” who have sided with Hillary, he has the full support of the “Net Rooters” and can sell out a stadium faster than Elton John. He’s got a huge private money pile on which to draw, and he’s kept his political contacts plentiful with his environmental work. Not to mention that he’s been against the Iraq war since before it started- something that Hillary is having a lot of trouble with since she initially voted for it- which gives him the anti-war vote, but he’s got a national popular election that he can point to as winning in 2000. But, perhaps most importantly, he’s shed the uptight, over-counseled demeanor that he held back in 2000, and has become loose, hip, and comfortable, all while talking about the issues that he wants to talk about. Again, that’s something that Hillary seems to be having trouble with. One thing that is also sometimes overlooked when talking about Al Gore- he can pretty much jump in and declare his candidacy whenever he wants.

So now we get into the real meat of this article- the reason why I wanted to write it.  As I’ve said before, I’m fairly certain that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, and that this will show itself fairly early during the primary season.  After all, he is perhaps the strongest single candidate in the long-winded list above, except perhaps for Gore.  So the question becomes: How do you beat a moderate republican with tons of money, war experience in a time of war, and the ability to dig into a chunk of voters that are traditionally yours?  The answer is to combine candidates.  Both Gore and Obama are smart and have plenty of Hype, and though Hillary is smart as well, she’s too proud to do what I propose.  But, like an interplanetary probe slingshotting around Jupiter and gaining momentum by stealing some of Jupiter’s orbital energy, Clinton’s campaign can be sacrificed to throw the Democratic power team of Gore/Obama forward and into the White House.  On paper, or at least in my mind, it seems easy enough:  Clinton and Obama proceed into the primaries as rivals for the Democratic nomination.  After the first few primaries, Obama may have won a few but Clinton will easily have the majority.  After Obama loses two or three (a few losses but not enough to prove that he couldn’t still take it), it’s time for Gore to throw his hat into the ring.  Along with Gore comes the third option that nobody was expecting (okay, maybe they were), and this disrupts primary season, throwing it all out of whack.  At the same time, Obama- the democrat that everybody wants to vote for but that doesn’t yet have enough experience- agrees to take the Vice Presidential spot on Gore’s ticket.  Now you’re set up for a great convention and a candidate team with tons of hype, money, smarts, a built-in candidate for 2016, and the antidote for the past 8 years.  That’s how you win a Presidential Election.