AMERICA ON TRIAL: WHY RIGHT-WINGERS HAVE REASON TO BE WORRIED ABOUT TRYING KSM.

NEW YORK--One of my favorite books is by a conservative. Every American should read Stephen L. Carter's 1996 primer on ethics, "Integrity." Carter writes that integrity requires doing the right thing, "even at personal cost." In the world of politics, the example of Al Gore's father comes to my mind: a senator from Tennessee, Al Gore, Sr. openly opposed segregation and the Vietnam War even though he knew his outspokenness would cause him to lose his 1970 reelection campaign.

Faced with the choice between integrity and expediency, Republicans are taking the low road. Principles? Only when they're convenient. Never mind the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions or common decency--on the question of what to do about POWs rotting away at Guantįnamo Bay concentration camp, right-wingers' concerns are purely practical.

We are talking, of course, about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court in Manhattan, within walking distance of the World Trade Center Memorial Hole, which marks America's resilience.

Note: I don't refer to Mohammed as "9/11 mastermind." Unlike most Americans, I don't believe that something is true just because the government says it. Until a jury and the media examine the facts, we have no idea whether Mohammed is guilty of anything. As far as we know, he could be nothing more than a poster child for Pakistani bed-head. Moreover, my distrust multiplies in direct proportion to the number times a suspect has been waterboarded (in Mohammed's case, at least 183).

Anyway, it's interesting to watch "law and order" conservatives like Rudy Giuliani talk away basic legal rights like habeas corpus. "[Mohammad] should be tried in a military tribunal," Giuliani says, "He is a war criminal. This is an act of war." No, Mr. Mayor, he's not. And this is no war. Had an actual war been declared, a nation-state would have attacked us. 9/11 was a criminal act, and a terrible one: mass murder, air piracy and property damage. Until Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is tried and convicted in a court of law, however he is an alleged criminal, innocent until proven guilty. Where'd this Giuliani guy go to law school, Wal-Mart?

Among Giuliani's other worries: "security concerns." "Just wait and see how much New York City spends on this in order to protect him," he warns. While we're at it, think of how much money the government could save by eliminating the criminal justice system! Why not just let the cops shoot anyone they want?

The attorney general's decision should be commended. He was correct to act independently, without consulting with Obama. It is a long overdue course correction for a government still careening down the road to moral illegitimacy. Still, Holder's pseudo-conservative critics--wouldn't a real conservative favor strict adherence to the law, practical concerns like the cost of security be damned?--have good reasons to worry about how the trial will unfold, if and when it actually comes to pass.

For example, Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan fears accused terrorists will exploit their trials. He worries they will "disrupt it and make it a circus and allow them to use it as a platform to push their ideology." Well, yeah. In political proceedings, the defendants always try to put the state on trial. Unfortunately, the military, CIA and Bush Administration made that outcome inevitable by refusing to treat 9/11 as a crime. Mohammed and his comrades ought to have been turned over to The Hague, where the dull murmur of transcription machines has a way of sucking all the drama out of the most political of trials.

John "Torture Memo" Yoo frets in The Wall Street Journal that "KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens--including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it." Though self-serving, it's an excellent point. The whole sordid story of America's post-9/11 torture program will be internationally televised.

At Mohammed's trial the whole world will hear how U.S. soldiers and intelligence agents stabbed, suffocated and sodomized detainees, including kids, most of whom were later determined to be innocent and set free. So much for the Obama effect; traveling overseas is going to suck for Americans from now on.

The government could have avoided this unpleasantness by, oh, not torturing. And, when we citizens heard and read and watched reports that our government was torturing, we could have racked up some integrity points by taking to the streets by the million to demand that it stop. But we had football and "Battlestar Galactica" and reality shows to watch instead. Oh, well.

Now it's time for America to take its lumps. Even if that means putting KSM on a plane back to Pakistan and watching him arriving home to a hero's welcome, that's too bad. Release is how a judge and jury typically treats a man who has been tortured while awaiting custody.

What does Stephen L. Carter think about this? I don't know, but I'd like to think that (as a conservative) he would agree with me. Integrity requires one to accept responsibility for one's actions.

What is So Patriotic About Fearmongering?

Creators Syndicate – The loudest voices on the right never tire of telling us that they are the truest patriots. They claim to be the deepest believers in our system, the strongest defenders of our Constitution, the most upbeat, bold and courageous Americans anywhere. But now that the government is finally prepared to put the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on trial, these same patriots are the first to spread doubt, instigate anxiety and abandon constitutional principles.

When did fearmongering in a time of war become an act of patriotism?

Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try al-Qaida strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other residents of the Guantanamo prison in American civilian courts has provoked angry criticism from all the usual sources, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to the Fox News airwaves. While some of the complaints are thoughtful, many are nothing more than demagogic appeals that seek to undermine the foundations of justice in a democratic society.

When Holder's critics say that Mohammed doesn't "deserve" an open and adversarial trial, they are misunderstanding the spirit of our laws. The right to a trial — indeed, all the rights afforded to criminal defendants under the Constitution — is not apportioned according to what the defendants supposedly deserve. What they deserve is, in fact, precisely what a fair trial is designed to determine.

The nation's founders despised the passions of the lynch mob and the arbitrary penalties handed down by kings and despots. They were particularly appalled by the tortures and abuse inflicted on American Revolutionary soldiers by the British oppressor — and vowed never to do the same to America's enemies.

When Holder's critics say that we don't dare try a criminal like Mohammed on the soil of the United States, in a New York City federal courthouse, that is a terrible concession to the terrorists. The same is true when those critics protest against incarcerating a figure such as Mohammed in an American prison, rather than Gitmo. Essentially, those arguments exaggerate the power of al-Qaida — which conservatives usually claim has been profoundly weakened over the past several years — and underestimates the strength of the American justice system.

In fact, we have been trying dangerous terrorists in American courts for many years, and then incarcerating them in American prisons. According to a new study by the Center for Law and Security at New York University, the U.S. government has indicted 828 defendants on terrorism-related charges since 2001. Of those indictments, trials are still pending against 235 defendants — and of the remaining 539 defendants, 523 were convicted either at trial or via plea.

The single largest venue for terrorism trials is New York City, where 145 terrorism indictments have been filed. The center found in a previous study that the conviction rate in New York is higher than in the rest of the nation, and that sentencing in New York is also tougher. That is understandable — and may help to explain why the attorney general chose the Southern District of New York for the Mohammed prosecution. In the city's federal courts, the conviction rate of individuals charged with terrorism involving a U.S. target is 100 percent.

When Mohammed is convicted (or pleads guilty, as he has previously vowed to do), the U.S. federal prison system is ideally equipped to inflict suitable punishment on him and his cohort. Better than providing him with martyrdom via execution, he should be buried in a "Supermax" prison, from which nobody has ever escaped, and left to rot.

The most basic challenge of the terror campaign waged by jihadi extremists is to preserve the differences between us and them — a challenge that the American government has failed at in far too many instances over the past eight years, through the use of torture, extrajudicial detentions, renditions to other countries, and various other violations of U.S. law and treaty obligations. Our own courts found that these acts by the previous administration were lawless and required them to be reversed.

As a nation, we should have the confidence to make the case against these murderers according to our laws and Constitution, without fear of their propaganda or violence. Every precaution should be taken to protect national security and public safety — and then our system will prevail over their perverse ideology.

Twilight and New Moon: sexual longing in a world of vampire abstinence

New York – If you've been spending time in proximity to teenage girls this week, there's a strong chance you've heard about "New Moon" and Edward Cullen. Edward is the undead hero of the bestselling young adult fantasy/romance "Twilight" series."

He's reached heartthrob status in a major way, and he's done it while refusing to devour, or sleep with, the story's heroine, like a Jonas Brother for the literary set. And now "New Moon," the second book in the series, is coming to a movie theater near you.

The "Twilight" books, written by Stephenie Meyer, have been heralded as the next "Harry Potter." To bank on the comparisons, "Breaking Dawn," the concluding installation, hit bookstores last summer with "Potter"-esque midnight parties, secrecy, and sales in the millions (although they didn't touch the "Potter" series' numbers, mostly because the fan base is so exclusively female and postpubescent).

There's plenty to cheer about when it comes to young girls reading voraciously. "Twilight" is much in the tradition of teen literature such as the "Nancy Drew" mysteries and "Goosebumps." The books are also rife with allusions to Shakespeare, Austen, and the Brontės, a nice touch that will inspire fans to hit the classics sections of their bookstores.

Is it 'Twilight' for strong heroines?
But what makes the "Twilight" saga particularly fascinating and disturbing are the sexual currents that run through its pages. Like American culture itself, "Twilight" is both lascivious and chaste. Ms. Meyer, a practicing Mormon, has said she draws a line at premarital sex for her characters. But, as New York Times columnist Gail Collins noted last year, boyfriend Edward holds the line, not heroine and narrator Bella. Bella, after all, is so hot for Edward she tells him she's going to "spontaneously combust" and frequently forgets to breathe when he kisses her.

Meanwhile, he is equally besotted with her, so much so that he trains himself to ignore his thirst for her blood, which has an aroma that could make even a good vampire (Edward and his coven have forsworn munching on humankind) go bad.

Yet Edward still won't go all the way because he doesn't want to get carried away and hurt Bella with his superhuman strength. Her physical safety becomes a symbolic substitute for her virginity, and Edward guards it with overprotective zeal.

Now that's a real fantasy: a world in which young women are free to describe their desires openly and launch themselves at men without shame, while said boyfriends are the sexual gatekeepers. The sexual flowchart in "Twilight" is the inversion of abstinence-only/purity ball culture, where girls are told that they must guard themselves against rabid boys and that they must rein in both their own and their suitors' impulses. But even while inverting the positions, Meyer doesn't change the game.

Purity is still the goal. Men, or vampires, are still dangerous and threatening while females are still breakable and fragile. Intercourse still has the potential of resulting in "death," just as it once relegated women to a social death. The only difference is the controls are handed over from the teenage girl to the guy – who happens, in this case, to be totally responsible and upright.

Meyer has tapped into a serious artery of the teen female psyche. Adding to the dynamic is the fact that Bella is a cipher whose only strong impulses are self-sacrifice and vampire lust. She has a glancing appreciation of classic novels and her family, but is easily projected upon by readers, who can imagine themselves in her place and be vicariously wooed.

Bella's other trait – overwhelming clumsiness – approximates adolescent bodily discomfort – the kind that comes from young women's realization that in a patriarchal society their bodies are now perceived as trouble incarnate. Rescuing Bella from her physical mishaps are Edward and her other suitor, Jacob, who happens to be a werewolf. The two of them happily tote her around so much it's a wonder Bella's legs don't atrophy.

It would be a far braver move for Meyer to show Bella's relationship helping her grow comfortable in her body. But instead she goes for the cheaper, more seductive, thrill of suggesting that ungainly, weak female bodies are the most attractive to men, that teenage gawkiness could be made into an appealing vulnerability that brings all the supernatural boys to the yard.

The lure of the books is so strong, even for feminist media critics (I devoured them more quickly than vampires catch their prey), that it's disturbing to resurface and ponder how retrograde Meyer's world is.

Bella's willingness to sacrifice her physical safety, her education, and her family and social ties for Edward – and the well-meaning but stringent control he exerts over her – are reminiscent, as some readers have said, of abusive relationships.

Talking about sex – not just the vampire kind
But teens are unlikely to change their views after reading the books: The hopeless romantics will remain so; the pragmatic readers will feel frustrated with Bella. Same goes for the book's take on virginity. It's doubtful Meyer foresaw how much graphic premarital sex in all kinds of gender and species permutations would appear in online fan fiction.

Though it does appear that "Twilight" readers' moms have found a good opening to talk about sex with their kids. And even better, the books have got teens arguing about gender roles, when to have sex, what defines a heroine, and the meaning of true love.

Taking a look at some blogs and sites that complain about "Breaking Dawn" (the fourth book) and the series in general, one can find feminist arguments galore. But the lively debate generated by the books implies that they may do more good than harm. It's the misogynistic climate in the books that harms their quality.

If Meyer had been able to put her "family values" aside to give Bella more spunk (and maybe a college education?) and generally lighten up on the patriarchal subtexts, the saga would improve aesthetically, and maybe, like the "Harry Potter" canon, reveal truths far beyond teenage wish fulfillment. Literary feminists can hope that J.K. Rowling gets inspired to write a strong, realistic heroine and show Meyer how it's done.

Until then, there's always Buffy.

SARAH PALIN: RICHARD NIXON UPDATED FOR THE CELEBRITY AGE

Poor, put-upon Sarah Palin.

She's been misrepresented by the left-leaning media, repressed and mishandled by Team McCain, betrayed by an ungrateful almost-son-in-law and falsely accused by political opponents back home in Alaska.

It's a wonder the woman survives to, ah, make so much money on that book of hers, "Going Rogue," given all the forces arrayed against her. But the former Alaska governor is a formidable personality, with a strong faith in her own righteousness.

Her capacity for self-delusion is undimmed, despite her experiences on the campaign trail. In Monday's interview with Oprah Winfrey, the formal kickoff of Palin's book tour, she rejected any blame for the loss of the McCain-Palin ticket.

"I think the reason that we lost, the economy tanked under a Republican administration. People were sincerely looking for change. I think, unfortunately, our ticket represented what was perceived as status quo," she said.

And even when Palin admits mistakes, she has a way of letting herself off the hook and pointing the finger elsewhere.

That disastrous Katie Couric interview? She knew it went badly; she caved in to her umbrage at Couric's suggestion that she wasn't well-informed, she told Winfrey.

"Obviously, I have, of course, all my life read. ... By the time she asked me that question ... I was just so annoyed and it was very unprofessional of me to wear that annoyance on my sleeve," she said.

Her stunning resignation as governor of Alaska, before her first term was over? Because of all those ethics complaints from her enemies, "My state of Alaska was being hampered by my presence there, being shackled behind a governor's desk."

The decision to put her pregnant teenage daughter, Bristol, and Bristol's boyfriend, Levi Johnston, on the public stage? In Palin's view, the fallout revealed the inclinations of an Obama-obsessed news media, which didn't subject the Obama children to such scrutiny.

"I wasn't given that privilege of being able to protect my kids," Palin told Winfrey. "I think there was a ... double-standard." Never mind that Palin chose to showcase Bristol and Levi at the Republican National Convention, starting with a warm greeting on the tarmac from the presidential candidate himself, McCain, as the teenagers arrived in Minnesota.

Palin is the new Richard Nixon, updated for the celebrity age. She's a stew of resentments -- angry at the elites, vindictive toward enemies real and imagined, unforgiving of even small slights.

Of course, she exudes a warmth and charm that Nixon never had. For one thing -- let's face it -- she's pretty, a trait that matters in the age of "Oprah" and YouTube, MySpace and Facebook. She's comfortable on the chatty stage of faux self-examination, in a way that Nixon would never have been. If you didn't know her history of all-out warfare against those who rile her family -- such as her former brother-in-law, Alaska state trooper Mike Wooten -- you might actually believe that she wishes Levi well.

Yet, she lacks a couple of important things Nixon had going for him: knowledge and experience. It wasn't CBS' Couric or ABC's Charlie Gibson or, for that matter, "Saturday Night Live's" Tiny Fey who caused Palin to appear ignorant on important policy matters. She did that all on her own.

And she will have to use all her considerable charm -- and no small number of ghost-written policy papers -- to change the public's opinion of her. A recent CBS News poll shows her with a favorable rating of only 23 percent. While she has 52 percent favorability rating among Republicans, that drops to just 21 percent among all-important independents.

Palin has remained coy about seeking the presidency in 2012, pointedly refusing to rule it out. She told ABC's Barbara Walters that she'd like to play a role in public life "if people will have me."

Her 52 percent -- a socially conservative, elite-resenting, MSM-hating cornerstone of the GOP -- will certainly have her. Despite her newfound affluence from speaking fees and book sales, Palin remains their standard-bearer against all those pointy-headed intellectuals and high-falutin' swells who [whom], they believe, have taken their country from them.

She's unlikely to refuse their entreaties to run.

The Fed is foolishly weakening the dollar

Irvine, Calif. – Has America's Federal Reserve become the single greatest obstacle to global economic recovery? Central bankers around the world are increasingly asking this question as the American greenback continues its Fed-inspired decline and damages the export-driven growth of countries from Latin America and Asia to Europe.

Historically, the Fed has responded to economic downturns by cutting interest rates to stimulate domestic business investment and consumer purchases of "big-ticket" items, like automobiles and housing, that are sensitive to the cost of loans. However, in the current crisis, this traditional formula is simply not working.

It's not working in part because the Fed's "solution" has been a concentrated dose of the problem. After years of promoting the easy money and loose credit that fueled asset bubbles, it has responded with even easier money and even looser credit. It's like fighting fire with gasoline.

American consumers are not responding to the Fed's liquidity surge because high employment, high oil prices, bottoming home prices, and stagnant wage growth have squeezed their purchasing power. Business investment has likewise failed to fill the recessionary gap because much of the investment US corporations used to make on American soil is increasingly being sent off shore.

Despite this lack of responsiveness, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke continues to throw monetary stimulus at the problem – and thereby has created an international dollar crisis now threatening the global recovery.

The declining dollar story is one of weakening demand for, and a massive oversupply of, the greenback. It is a sad and sordid tale scripted almost entirely by the Fed.

During the worst months of the global financial crisis, investors flocked to the dollar as a haven amid the storm. But since March 2009, when economic policy under the Bernanke Fed and the Obama administration became clearer, they have fled the greenback. In that time, the dollar index has fallen 16 percent.

You can't blame investors for selling. By first driving, and then maintaining, short-term interest rates near zero, the Bernanke Fed has made it far less attractive for them to hold dollars.

In a desperate effort to break the back of the credit crisis, the Fed has also engineered the most massive increase in the money supply in US history. Since 2007, the Fed has roughly doubled the monetary base. This, however, is only half of the oversupply story.

The other half of the tale involves the willingness of the Bernanke Fed to help accommodate the rapidly rising, and historically unprecedented, US budget deficits. Such accommodation involves the Fed's willingness to print new money to purchase many of the government bonds being issued by the Treasury Department to finance the budget deficit.

The practical effect of the Fed's easy money policies has not been to stimulate the US economy through traditional channels of domestic consumption and business investment. Rather, it has debased the dollar and thereby, in true beggar-thy-neighbor fashion, helped to stimulate demand for US exports while discouraging imports from the rest of the world. To the rest of the world, this policy seems cynically aimed at bootstrapping the American economy through exports at the expense of its trading partners.

This beggar-thy-neighbor effect is further complicated by the Chinese government's pegging of its currency to the falling greenback. Because of this peg, every time the dollar falls, the Chinese yuan falls with it. The steadily weakening yuan has further boosted the already formidable competitive advantage of Chinese manufacturers in markets across the globe.

In response to sluggish export demand in their home countries and the loss of market share to China, central bankers around the world are beginning to retaliate with large-scale interventions in the currency markets designed to brake the dollar's decline relative to their own currencies. The clear danger is that this tactical retaliation will devolve into a longer term strategy of competitive devaluations that will ultimately pit nation against nation and destabilize the already fragile international monetary system.

Washington officially supports a strong dollar. But its policies suggest otherwise. To avoid this destructive cycle, it is critical that the Fed and the Obama administration find the courage to end easy money and the accommodation of ever-larger budget deficits. This certainly won't be easy, but the road to global economic recovery must ultimately be paved with both fiscal and monetary discipline in the US – not with Great Depression-style competitive devaluations.

Memo to Holder: Who's Accountable Now?

When the Clinton administration prosecuted the blind cleric, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, and nine co-defendants in federal court in New York for their roles in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, much less was known about al-Qaeda and the risks of using ordinary criminal process for terror suspects. Part of the legacy of that trial was the disclosure of information to the lawyers for the defendants that wound up promptly in the hands of al-Qaeda members who eventually would plan and execute the next attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The information, which revealed some of what our government knew about international terrorism and how we knew it, helped shield some of the terror enterprise's deadly planning from those trying earnestly to monitor and stop terrorism. No one will ever know how to apportion responsibility, but there should be no doubt that this was one of many contributing factors to the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent lives in the horrific attacks of 9/11.

Now President Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has made the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (indicted but never prosecuted for the 1993 explosion) to trial in federal court in New York as the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks. I have no doubt that Mr. Holder is an honorable man who took this decision seriously, worried about it, and weighed carefully the advice of his legal team and others in (and perhaps out of) the administration regarding the risks and benefits of this and alternative approaches, such as use of the military tribunals authorized by Congress and favored by the Bush administration for terror trials. The 240 pages of memoranda he reviewed just before reaching his decision were the synthesis of what both political appointees and career officials thought most relevant to the choice of process and venue. The public doesn't yet know what was in those memos - whether they contained any speculation on political risks from sticking with military tribunals, for instance - but undoubtedly a lot of legal and practical considerations were reviewed critically by the team and the Attorney General.

Most public attention now will focus on whether Mr. Holder made the right choice. But that isn't the only question people concerned with how our government works should be asking.

The other question is what if Mr. Holder has guessed wrong? What if challenges to the way evidence was obtained result in exclusion of enough material that KSM is acquitted? What if discovery rules for federal criminal trials again result in disclosure of sensitive information - ending up in the hands of our enemies - on how we gather information and who provides it? What if that facilitates another attack with more lives lost?

Would there then be exposure for Holder and those who advised him? Should the public have access to the memos now so that we can judge for ourselves if the advice was sound? Should we be thinking about possible legal sanctions, maybe even prosecution, if we decide the advice was wrong, that it didn't rightly account for the risks to our safety and our lives, that it didn't value our security highly enough, or didn't ultimately fulfill the legal obligations of those in high office?

**********

Like all Americans, I sincerely hope Holder's optimism respecting the use of civilian courts for deciding what punishment to mete out to international terrorists is borne out. I also recognize that every critical decision like this one ultimately is a judgment about the probability of certain results and the values of specific good or bad outcomes. There can be no certainty in these matters.

If history is a guide, however, there will be plenty of bad fallout from this choice. The ill fit between the criminal process and the fight against international terrorism will reverberate in a series of decisions down the road respecting the conflict between effective antiterrorist measures and steps necessary to preserve litigation options. We don't want soldiers thinking about reading enemy combatants their rights, giving them Miranda warnings, making sure they have access to lawyers. We don't want our intelligence community worrying that Brady rules for disclosing evidence will compromise their effectiveness by revealing critical information on their methods and sources.

Admittedly, there are laws to protect confidential information that, in theory, can help shape procedures at trial to prevent nightmare scenarios. But those laws were in place during Rahman's trial as well. While one of his lawyers and other members of his legal team were convicted and sentenced to prison for revealing confidential information in that trial, that provides little comfort to Americans who lost loved ones, thanks in part to the disclosures. Laws are critical to our civilization, but the threat of legal punishment isn't enough to prevent harm from people who don't value our laws or our lives.

**********

In marked contrast, the threat of legal punishment has a powerful chilling effect on people who live under the rule of law, whose lives and livelihoods are tied to the law. Much as I disagree with Mr. Holder, he and those who advised him shouldn't have to worry about the prospect of prosecution if the next administration decides they made the wrong call. They shouldn't have to worry about having the information they were looking at disclosed in ways that might discourage open, honest communication among public officials. They shouldn't have to worry about conforming to whatever comes to be accepted as good policy two or four or ten years down the road.

That is a lesson the same officials should keep in mind as they weigh what steps to take against former Bush administration officials. Mr. Holder and President Obama have wavered on the question whether prior officials should be prosecuted for their determinations - whether memos and communications between Department of Justice attorneys and other administration officials should be publicly released. Those officials should get the same respect for a serious, thoughtful effort to frame the information the right way and to reach the right decision as those advising Holder should receive now.

Edited by author 11-18-2009 08:31 PM
Yesterday, I spent all day running errands. I thought I was going to be able to get my Fragmin injections, but because of an insurance glitch, I had to get Lovenox instead. (That was today.)

I hopped the bus back up Evergreen Way and got off close to Frontier Bank where I got the #11 to the Everett Mall.

Once I got there, I went to Sam Goody's and bought two steel-case exclusive copies of the new STAR TREK movie!

(I had them on reserve for the past 3 months now.)

So afterwards, I jumped on the #11 and was about to head home when I realized...I had forgotten my cane!

So, I hopped off and went to get it--missing the bus. But I figured that a good walk home wouldn't hurt along the way and did that; making a quick pitstop over at McDonalds.

After that, I headed home.

Just as we ate our pizza and watched maybe a half-hour's worth of the new movie, I was overcome--in quick fashion--by excruciating pain in my right side.

I spent the next 4-5 hours trying to pass what was either another kidney stone fragment or a small blood clot.

Either way, I was NOT a happy camper!

The pain subsided sometime after 1 in the morning--from 8:35PM--and I was finally able to get one night of uninterrupted sleep.

But when we got to Social Security for the meeting over the matter of me paying back nearly $21,000--the pain started up just a little.

I was sure I was going to have another "drive by" today and I just kept thinking about other things--other than the unnerving pain in my side. (Which is coming and going, but it is not like it was last night.)

I stopped off at the post office and dropped off Tara's copy of STAR TREK. I paid an extra 68-cents to cover the added weight of the DVD movie and she should be getting it either by Thanksgiving, or the day *after*.

The matter with Social Security is that I'm facing a 0.2% chance that I'll have my case overturned and my SSDI payments restored. But because we lacked a lawyer and our case wasn't that credible to the judge--it's most likely that we are going to have the previous decision stand.

Which...is going to make my publishing plans a lot harder to carry out. I was hoping to use the lump sum paid back to launch my book. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

So...I'm going to have to try something else.

The only good thing about this, is that I won't have to pay back the amount--due to my limited income. And even if I *were* working either part time or full time, they still wouldn't take it out because I don't make near enough (per year) to live on my own.

Or support April.

(Especially when you're looking at rent being sky high as it is. And every other basic necessities are also pricey.)

So I have some appointments I need kept for the coming month. But the application process is going to take awhile. So I have plenty of time to sort things out.

Outside of that...? I'm ready to go for my upcoming laser lithotripsy surgery. It's not going to be pretty, but I want this damned stone out of me! (Or whatever the hell is causing me so much pain!)

On the political front, some people are still worried about the terror trials going on in New York. One letter writer in the Everett Herald was an absolute FRUITCAKE. (Yes, Washington state *does* have its share of nuts too!)

He claimed that everything he learned about terrorists--he learned in kindergarden. (When I was kindergarten, I was still learning my numbers and letters. How could this guy have advanced knowledge of the world around him when he was 2 or 3 years of age? I certainly didn't!)

Then he went on to make some garbled comparison to terrorists from the classic "War of the Worlds" movie. (The 1953 version.)

He thought that fiction meant "reality" and tried to say that the Martians--whom invaded Earth--were just as bad as the "radical Islamic terrorists whom seek to destroy America outright".

He thinks that if the "other half" of America would "just get it" (meaning liberals, Democrats, Independents and other third-party voters), we could "wipe out Islam all over the face of the Earth".

He went on to say that Vietnam was winnable--if only the "peaceniks" hadn't interferred with the war by turning America against its own President and military, and Iraq was the same way--had the "left-leaning liberals not contaminated the war effort in a bid to make Bush look bad".

But the thing is, both wars ended badly. The surge that Bush launched in a desperate bid to save what was left of his sagging Presidency didn't have the "full on" effect that he had hoped for.

All it did was just buy him and Obama time to get out of the country--while we still had a military left to pull command.

Afghanistan is in the same boat as Iraq and Vietnam. Neither one has an exit strategy and neither one is "winnable" by any realistic measure.

We may have tamped down the violence in both countries, but we left both nations in shambles as a direct result of our invasion. (Because--as you know--invading armies of all kinds have had this effect on other targeted nations. World War II is a good example of the carnage cost by both Allies and the Axis powers. Europe was left in ruins as a result of the 4-year conflict. Parts of Vietnam was too. And now--? Iraq joins the club. And assuming we haven't COMPLETELY obliterated Afghanistan into nothing...? That country will also share a similar fate.)

Palin's populist book tour won't help GOP

Atlanta – When Sarah Palin's book "Going Rogue" hits stores today, it will increase the tension between elitism and populism that's marked American conservatism from the beginning.

Today, the Republican Party, led by Ms. Palin and Mike Huckabee, is unabashedly folksy. Their brand of populism – reaching out to ordinary voters by rejecting the values and intellect of the so-called establishment – may help sell books and draw high television ratings, but it won't rebuild a party that is still reeling from last year's severe defeat.

If conservatives want to abbreviate their exile in the political wilderness, they should move quickly to reassert their claim to intellectual leadership. Long-run political success requires developing ideas that make America secure and prosperous. And that takes a party in tune with its head more than its heart.

Conservatism's elitist roots
Throughout much of American history, conservative-minded politicians like President John Adams and Sen. Daniel Webster were openly elitist.

In their view, government was the preserve of the virtuous, intelligent, and educated minority, who must refuse to pander to the whims of the electorate. Conservatism meant the preservation of a complex and fragile civilization, which had to be protected from the rabble. Demagogues like President Andrew Jackson, who invited everyone to his inauguration, turning it into a drunken rout, jeopardized the republic.

President Herbert Hoover shared this view.

He had come into office in 1929 as one of the most loved and admired of all Americans. He was the great humanitarian hero of World War I and had enjoyed almost a decade of success as secretary of Commerce.

Then he was blamed for the Great Depression, which began less than a year after his election. Homeless men called their shantytowns "Hoovervilles."

Hoover was no laissez-faire conservative. He took several aggressive measures to combat the nation's worst-ever economic crisis. But by 1932, voters thought the man with the high starched-collar shirt was out of touch, electing instead one of America's most populist presidents: Franklin Roosevelt.

Roosevelt's New Deal horrified Hoover as a departure from America's traditions of citizen independence and limited government. He feared that FDR might be an American counterpart of the dictators then coming to dominate Europe: Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler. Like today's Republicans, he dreaded too much federal power, too much federal spending, and too great a national debt.

On the other hand, he had never been a moss-backed conservative, and he knew that merely turning the clock back would never work. In a speech to the GOP convention in 1936, he reminded his fellow Republicans that "betterment for the common man must be inspired by the human heart" but that it could "only be achieved by the intellect."

As Republicans considered policy alternatives to the New Deal, they must build "from the materials of scientific research" by painstakingly "sifting truth from the collection of fact and experience." Ideas, not impulses, he believed, should characterize the Republican recovery.

Hoover's impassioned words to his party in 1936 did nothing to sway the voters, who reelected Roosevelt in one of the greatest landslides of the century, then went on to elect him again and yet again. Nor did conservatives themselves heed his plea for intellectual rigor.

In the decades following, conservatism more often than not put its faith in the masses and their intuitive good sense, arguing that the elite was out of touch with the real America.

Conservative anticommunism in the cold-war era was a popular – and populist – movement, sometimes degenerating into feverish McCarthyism. The Moral Majority and its successors on the Christian right were populist, too: high on righteous indignation, low on intellect. They asserted the superiority of ordinary God-fearing citizens and argued that a sinister elite of "secular humanists" threatened the nation.

The conservative movement confronted internal contradictions even as President Ronald Reagan brought it to power in 1980. Libertarians, traditionalists, elitists, and populists had little in common other than their dislike of liberals and their fear of communism. It took skillful leadership, and the artful writing of men like William F. Buckley Jr. and Irving Kristol to keep the factions cooperating.

Once the Soviet Empire collapsed about 1990, the movement lost the cement that had been holding it together. The conservative factions, disagreeing on basic questions of philosophy and policy, bickered through the 1990s and into the next millennium.

Neoconservatives won the struggle for influence within the administration of President George W. Bush, especially over foreign policy. But the wars for Middle Eastern democracy they had planned didn't turn out quite as intended, and their star also waned.

Movement without a leader
Now the conservative movement, and the Republican Party to which it belongs, have come to a crossroads. Much in need of counsel, they recently lost their best guides with the deaths of both Buckley and Kristol. On the landscape of the right today there is, for the moment, no charismatic political leader and no agreed-upon intellectual guru.

As they face the future, conservatives need to contemplate the blend of good and bad news confronting them. The good news is that the United States, which has enjoyed extraordinary political stability under the Constitution for more than two centuries, is a very conservative place, latently ready and willing to support them.

Conservative history offers a rich array of former leaders and thinkers, from whose insights this generation can draw. Without losing sight of the need for electoral strength, the movement can recover some of the intellectual dignity that it sacrificed in the McCain-Palin campaign.

The bad news takes us back to the 1930s. Hoover gradually recovered his reputation (Presidents Truman and Eisenhower both esteemed him highly), but as a figure in electoral politics he was finished. From the 1930s until the late '70s the Democrats seemed to be the party of ideas, putting the Republicans at a disadvantage from which they recovered only slowly.

If they want to take back the White House and Congress, Republicans should move quickly to reclaim their leadership on ideas. In the long run, intellectual power and political success go together.

I suffered an asthmatic attack this morning which had me practically terrified out of my wits.

I couldn't go back to sleep because of it.

So April and I went to the ER to have me checked out and it turns out that I had a mild episode with some minor inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart.

But I came away with more meds to sink a battleship--that's for sure!

I'm just hoping that this is just an isolated incident and not the start of something else.

CONSERVATIVES POISED TO REPEAT HISTORY

LOS ANGELES -- Was George Santayana right when he said that those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

Well, perhaps the Republican Party can test that thesis for the rest of us. Forty-five years ago the Republicans in convention -- the convention that nominated Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater for president -- tried to boo New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller off the stage when he said:

"These extremists feed on fear, hate and terrorism. They encourage disunity ... The Republican Party must repudiate those people."

It was no tea party, that one. Angry Goldwater delegates began booing and chanting, "We Want Barry!" Many of the people in the hall wanted Rockefeller out of the party at least as much as they wanted Goldwater in the White House.

"Rockefeller was the enemy!" said Richard Viguerie, who was one of the most enthusiastic chanters in the balcony. He was 30 years old then and was soon to become an important figure in the "New Right," the branch of the party that wanted liberals, and moderates too, out so that the Grand Old Party would be a pristine conservative vehicle. Maybe a Model T.

Goldwater, of course, went down in one of the greatest landslides in the history of presidential elections. Many raw conservatives ended up more or less in the wilderness or underbrush until they felt free to come out into the open again during Ronald Reagan's run for president in 1980.

It seemed to me then that the big story of last Tuesday's cluster of elections was not the Democratic defeats in gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, but the amazing race in the 23rd Congressional District of New York, a relatively poor area where trees greatly outnumber residents. Most of that area -- congressional district lines have changed over time -- has sent only Republicans to Washington since 1871. On Tuesday, a Democrat named Bill Owens was elected over a moderate Republican and a Conservative Party candidate named Douglas Hoffman.

How could that happen? Well, conservatives were out of the woods again. Local Republican leaders in 11 counties had given the nomination to a state assemblywoman, Dede Scozzafava. National Republican trumpeters, led by radio talk show hosts Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, proclaimed that Scozzafava was too liberal on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage. Sarah Palin and money from conservatives all over the country poured in, and Scozzafava was effectively marginalized and quit the race, throwing what support she had to Owens. National party leaders were humiliated, but they quickly joined the push for Hoffman. In the name of party unity, they abandoned their own nominee.

Owens defeated Hoffman in a race close enough that national conservatives probably found encouragement in their drive to marginalize all moderate Republicans. (There are no liberal Republicans of the Rockefeller type to eject anymore. The last ones standing, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Leach, were defeated in 2006.)

The new New Right, I suspect, will be a major factor in the 2010 congressional election. Establishment Republicans are celebrating party victories in Virginia and New Jersey -- good for them -- but it is no longer a joke when folks say Limbaugh is the real leader of their party. The radio conservatives will almost certainly be challenging establishment Republicans across the country. When the new New Right cannot choose the Republican candidate, which is what happened in upstate New York, they are going to use or try to create third parties. That was easy under New York election laws because the state has had a small but real Conservative Party on the ballot since the early 1960s.

Santayana's quote about history is not the only relevant thought about what these off-off-year elections showed. It was Henry Clay who said he'd rather be right than be president. Clay was exaggerating more than a bit, but conservatives are going to demand that Republicans be Right before they can be president -- and history will repeat itself in defeat.

Call Joe Lieberman's Bluff; Have a Real Inquiry

The Nation -- Following the horrific shootings at the Fort Hood army base in Texas, Connecticut Senator Lieberman pulled a thread from the right-wing blogosphere and called for a congressional inquiry into whether the incident was an act of "terrorism."

Not domestic terrorism, but full-blown terrorism that is comparable to what is seen in the most unstable of warzones.

"This was an attack on America troops," Lieberman chirped on Fox New Sunday. "You've got to see it as if 12 American troops were killed in Afghanistan."

But, wait, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting a strategically-sophisticated and structurally-coordinated enemy that employs traditional military tactics and terrorist strategies such as suicide bombings in urban areas.

Is Lieberman serious about making a comparison between what happened at Fort Hood and what happens in Kabul?

Not really.

When he's pinned down, Lieberman makes the slightly more precise calim that the Army doctor who killed 13 people and wounded 29 at Fort Hood showed signs of being a "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist."

Never mind that another way of saying "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist" might be "completely isolated mental-health case."

Never might that, when he started running the "terrorist" line on Fox New Sunday, host Chris Wallace used a sound line of questioning to make it clear that the senator did not have "any evidence so far (from) what you and your staff have heard in briefings that.. he was exchanging communications either in this country or overseas with other Islamic radicals."

Lieberman says he plans to use his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to launch a congressional investigation into the motives behind what he describes as "the worst terrorist attack since 9/11."

In his calmer moments, Lieberman admits that "it's premature to reach conclusions about what motivated [Major Nidal Malik Hasan]" and acknowledges that "the stress he was under" was a factor.

But, of course, the "homegrown terrorist" line was a headline grabber.

And the senator will not let go.

So be it.

Let's call Joe Lieberman's bluff.

Let's have the Homeland Security Committee hearings.

While the Army and the FBI will conduct both criminal invesigations and serious inquiries into why Major Hasan's breakdown was not adequately noted or addressed by his commanders, congressional oversite of the military is always appropriate.

So have the hearings. But make them real.

There's no need to downplay the fact that Major Hasan was a Muslim, or that he appears to have bought into some of the most extreme -- and broadly rejected -- variants on Islam.

There's nothing wrong with asking precise, detailed questions that offer as much explanation and detail as can be accumulated. There is no point in being politically correct -- or in being politically incorrect. Embrace transparency and facts. Bring in experts and ask questions.

Ask all the questions.

What was the bigger factor motivating Major Hasan: stress or religion?

Was Major Hasan a cold, calculating Islamic extremist or a deeply troubled man who was about to be dispatched to a warzone (Afghanistan) on a mission that associates and family members said was his "worst nightmare"?

Was the stress Major Hasan was under the sort that might lead an otherwise responsible individual to get lost in a swirl of religious ranting and fundamentalist fantasy?

Could such stress lead other individuals to embrace fundamentalisms, be they Muslim, Jewish or Christian?

Might it be a good idea to strengthen the wall of separation between church and state in what is supposed to be a secular fighting force?

And don't hestitate to ask questions about Muslims in the military?

Was Major Hasan a typical American Muslim? or an outlier far removed from the mainstream values and practices of a religion that has been practiced in the United States since the founding of the republic?

Was Major Hasan typical in any way of the thousands of Muslims who currently serve in the U.S. military?

Isn't it true that the overwhelming majority of Muslim soldiers serve with distinction and that, overall, Muslim soldiers -- like their Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu comrades -- have historically been seen as less likely to get involved with fights and violence on military bases?

Isn't it true that Muslim soldiers are seen by military commanders as essential players in a diverse Army that does not merely reflect the whole of America but that presents the best face of America in a world where it is vital to assure that this country's military missions are not dismissed as the "crusades" of a western nation that does not understand Islam or Islamic states?

Was Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey right when he warned against actions that could "heighten the backlash" against Muslims in the military and argued that Muslim soldiers provide diversity "gives us ALL strength"?

Was General Casey even more right when he declared after the shootings, and after he had reviewed detailed reports about Major Hasan's background, motivations and actions, that: "As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well"?

The GOP's Toxic Tea Party

Creators Syndicate – When Newt Gingrich warned Republicans that they were making a grave "mistake" by driving out moderates and enforcing the angry orthodoxy of the far right, the sober tone of his remarks was stunning.

This is a politician who is no stranger himself to the wilder shores of extremism, a populist and a purist who rose to great power against the GOP establishment, and a demagogue whose lexicon lacerated the "Democrat Party" as decadent, elitist, unpatriotic and immoral.

In his day, Gingrich channeled the same phobias and fury as the Tea Party activists whose growing influence in Republican ranks seems to have shaken him so badly. Why is Newt scared now?

Despite his habitual ranting against the Eastern elites, the former House speaker is a professional historian and an intellectual with wide-ranging interests — making him a figure of potential suspicion to radio talkers without much formal education and the raving mobs that follow them.

Much as he exploited the prejudices of the religious right and fantasies of the conspiracy crowd, Gingrich has always affected a more sophisticated and urbane attitude. He may be troubled to realize that he suddenly ranks far lower than Sarah Palin, who can barely muster a coherent political thought, or Glenn Beck, who enthralls his audience with weird, weepy rants.

Leaving aside any lingering presidential ambitions, Gingrich understandably feels that brand of leadership will have a very limited appeal for most Americans — and that the more voters see of it, the less they will like it.

Is it fair to stigmatize the tea-baggers and their leaders as a movement of the fringe? In New York's 23rd congressional district, Douglas Hoffman, the right-wing carpetbagger who drove out moderate local Republican Dede Scozzafava, apprenticed himself to Beck, obsequiously flattering the Fox News host as his "mentor."

Hoffman signed a pledge to uphold the "912 principles and values" endorsed by Beck — a juvenile tract that demands honesty, thrift, humility and charity even as it complains that government forces citizens to "share" when they don't want to. (As far as Beck is concerned, all Democrats are "Marxist" and almost all Republicans are "Marxist lite.")

No doubt Hoffman is eagerly studying the collected writings of the late Cleon Skousen, the Beck-endorsed prophet whose speeches used to stir up meetings of the John Birch Society, mostly against Republicans of the Rockefeller and Kissinger variety. He has plenty of time for reading now, after losing the special election to Democrat Bill Owens.

If the revival of Birchite mania troubles Gingrich, then the Palin phenomenon, now breaking loose with the publication of her memoir, must be equally disturbing. The former Alaska governor has a long, Beck-like history of affiliation with bizarre causes and characters, including an Alaskan secessionist party and a Kenyan witch-hunting evangelist who conducted an exorcism rite in her Wasilla church. She will ignore or minimize those episodes in "Going Rogue," but putting extra lipstick on this pit bull may not help.

Most Americans don't know much yet about the idiosyncratic ideology of the Tea Party crowd, beyond their conviction that President Obama was born in Kenya (and that his birth announcement in the Hawaii newspapers is therefore part of a plot that dates back to the Kennedy era). But what they have seen so far, they don't seem to like: The more that Beck, Palin and kindred spirits appear to represent the Republican brand, the less appeal that brand possesses.

From the perspective of Gingrich and other veteran Republicans, there is deep irony in these untoward developments. Many of the Tea Party types actually hate Republican politicians, unless, like Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater, they are already dead. They hate Democrats, too, of course — and lots of other people — but their invective against Republicans is suffused with special outrage.

If they have their way, every Republican who doesn't adhere to the Beck canon will be driven out at the end of a pitchfork, just like poor Dede Scozzafava.

Fifteen years ago, when Newt rode to power on the resentments of the religious right, the gun lobby and the economic royalists, he celebrated their extremism as the political style of "normal Americans." Today when he hears the violent rhetoric, the hateful threats and the fanatical intolerance, he knows they are talking about him, too.

NO GOOD ANSWERS IN AFGHANISTAN

WASHINGTON -- A new term is making the rounds in foreign policy circles in Washington these days. It is undeniably clumsy. The term is "the un-Vietnam," referring to a war that has been over for 34 years yet still comes back like an arrow gone wrong when we talk about Afghanistan.

As the Obama administration ponders what to do about Afghanistan, the papers have been full of that awful, lost war in Indo-China. The first of November, the Financial Times headlined a full-page article "The Vietnam Moment" and termed it "a dilemma similar to that of LBJ four decades ago." The Washington Post's huge opinion column was titled, "It's Vietnam, Again," and quoted Sen. John Kerry, veteran of the 1960s war.

"One of the lessons of Vietnam," the Massachusetts Democrat is quoted as saying, "is if you are going to send American forces into harm's way, you don't do it in a limited way. You don't do it tying hands behind your back ahead of time. You don't ask people to give their lives for something less than the prospect of success."

And even former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev's fears of "another Vietnam" -- in Russia -- are being revived. Thinking about THEIR war in Afghanistan in the 1980s and remembering the last Americans leaving Saigon in panic in 1975, he once feared, he told his aides, "We cannot leave in our underpants ... or without any."

But for now, it is enough to ask how similar Vietnam, our old nemesis, really is historically to Afghanistan, our new one.

The Vietnam war in South Asia was actually very different in its essence from today's conflicts. The central truth to Vietnam was that the North Vietnamese saw fighting us as the closing chapter of their colonial war against the French. American officialdom saw it as another tentacle of the Communist octopus that was strangling mankind. It seemed obvious to perhaps most of us that our interests there were finite, while Hanoi's were infinite -- they would fight forever, not on American congressional time schedules.

But it is important to add that Vietnam always lay only on the outskirts of Communism's real ideological centers in Moscow, Beijing and even that Third World inspiration, Havana. In Washington, it was moderate Ike who warned consistently about getting into a "war on the Asian mainland," while it was Democratic presidents Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ who embraced the war, much out of hubris, at a time when American spirits were high after victory in World War II.

Differences and similarities? One could argue that Afghanistan is also in a post-colonial moment, although that period of time would more rightfully be in its wars against the British occupiers in the 19th century and against the Soviet occupiers in the 1980s. Communism as a nationalist truth serum is long since past, but the new fanatic worldwide ideology, radical Islam fighting to establish an all-powerful caliphate in the Muslim world, is all too real -- and the al-Qaida and Taliban centers are in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Contrary to Vietnam, the U.S. had real reasons to go into Afghanistan after al-Qaida's attacks on the American mainland on 9/11. Moreover, it was a conservative American president, George W. Bush, who got us into Afghanistan to find al-Qaida, and then, as almost a second thought, into a war of adventure and retribution in Iraq. Now the physical skeletons and the ideological refuse are left for a liberal Democratic president and his reluctant team to deal with, and there are no easy answers, if indeed any answers at all.

As to similarities, yes, there are some of those, too. When the two wars started, in 2002 and 2003, many of those same surviving Special Forces guys and political and US/AID adventurers who had been in Vietnam suddenly came out of the woodwork at receptions and meetings in Washington. But this time there was also a new -- and dangerous -- group of gung-ho, often abnormally violent contract workers.

There was also the dangerous propensity of Americans -- think Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan -- to get into "small wars" all over the world, trying to make other peoples behave while we ourselves misbehave.

And it is here that the term "un-Vietnam" keeps rearing its head. People who use it are arguing that Afghanistan, with its "al-Qaida attacked us!" roots, is historically and constitutionally different from that unhappy chapter in South Asia.

Yet the fear in the administration and among responsible Americans is that it may nevertheless end very much LIKE Vietnam. For the problem that President Obama and the administration face is that leaving Vietnam was relatively easy geopolitically, if not humanly -- you sail away and defeat Moscow in other ways. But the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan are far more dangerous.

Both countries are inside great continents -- and the effects of actions taken there will reverberate like waves across dozens of other countries. You "sail" away and you leave the people there to the pitiless Taliban, you leave in place the people who attacked us on 9/11, and you might actually pave the way for that new, post-Communist international threat, an Islamic caliphate.

That is why Barack Obama is taking so much time to decide what to do. The whole mess he inherited is there, and real, and urgent -- and millions of lives and fortunes are dependent upon the acts that earlier Americans took in our names.

The true message of Vietnam is that whatever this administration decides, it will be at least partly wrong. That is why we, the American people, have got to stop these adventures before they start.

GOP Gets Up Off Gurney, But is Far From Recovery

It's been a long time since Republicans savored the day after.

"This certainly was a much needed shot in the arm for Republicans. And should be a dire warning sign for Democrats," said Tony Fabrizio, a veteran GOP strategist.

But Fabrizio's long term view differed. "The smart Republicans are looking at it and saying ok, we're not dead yet," he continued. "But we can't assume that the election of these two Republicans means that the voters think we are right and are embracing Republican principles."

Tuesday's gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey have, in typical fashion, led to some exaggerated public comments. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele declared a "Republican renaissance has begun."

Strategists at the helm of Republican presidential campaigns are not so sure.

Interviews with top GOP strategists paint three conclusions. A Republican revival is possibly underway. But possibly does not mean probably. The off-year races do not level the Republicans' steep road ahead.

Few strategists know the steep road better than Bill McInturff. One year ago, as John McCain's top pollster, McInturff saw his party and candidate reap the whirlwind of dissatisfaction--dissatisfaction with George W. Bush, with Republicans, and, most consequentially, with the economy.

McInturff witnessed a different electorate Tuesday. It was the margins. The Republican candidate won by more than 4 points in blue New Jersey. It was the structure of turnout. In Virginia, 51 percent of the voters were former McCain supporters. Yet last year, Obama won 53 percent of the state. It was that affluent blue suburbs went red. Republicans won Fairfax County for the first time since 1997. Perhaps foremost, the middle moved. In both states, independents sided with Republicans by a 2-to-1 ratio over Democrats.

"In 2008, independent voters were really difficult. They just were not listening. To now have independents demolish the Democrats in two states is a big deal," McInturff said. "Look, if I were a Democrat, I would be very sober now looking toward 2010," McInturff added. But McInturff took a sober view of his party as well.

"Tuesday night did not fix the Republican Party's problems. And Tuesday night does not mean much in the context of 2012," he continued. "But it's still the best night Republicans have had in five years. It's still a lot better day Wednesday for Republicans than it was Monday."

It was indeed a lot better to be a Republican on Wednesday. Off-year elections are poor predictors of future contests, but they can capture the present. The center has been slipping from Democrats since summer. Gallup tracks Obama's approval rating among independents first falling below 50 percent in late July. In late September, Democrats' advantage with independents was the slimmest it had been since 2005. Now, in McInturff's words, "It isn't just data. There are actual consequences."

But several GOP strategists warned those consequences could prove limited. "We can kid ourselves now because Obama has a world of problems," said John Weaver, a moderate Republican strategist. "Everyone's crowing about a comeback. And you take any big wins you can get. But first off, we haven't even admitted that we have any structural problems. I think we have our head in the sand about our problems."

Those GOP problems remain numerous. Democrats party identification advantage is at least 10 points, according to three major October polls. One of those polls, by The Washington Post and ABC News, found that only 34 percent of the public trusts Democrats in Congress to make the "right decisions for the country's future." That's low. But for Republicans it was 19 percent.

The recent Wall Street Journal poll finds that only 42 percent of the country has a positive view of Democrats. It's 25 percent for Republicans.

Then there is the force of incumbency, of holding the White House. The much discussed but unresolved demographic issues. Democrats have won Hispanics since at least 1980. They have won youth and first-time voters since 1992.

And there is the Republican tension between purists and moderates. That complicates any party recovery. It's why, on Tuesday, Beltway eyes were focused on an upstate New York congressional district. The conservative forced out the moderate Republican. The Democrat won. The circumstances of the race were uncommon. The tension is not.

MSNBC "Morning Joe" viewers witnessed that tension Election Day morning. Joe Scarborough asked Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty if he wanted Olympia Snowe, a moderate senator from Maine, in the Republican Party. Pawlenty refused four times to say "yes."

Pawlenty, a likely 2012 candidate, is looking ahead. And he is worried about the ire of his base. Contenders often are.

For now, the story is the 2010 midterms. Democrats are favored to keep their Congressional majority. But they will lose seats. A modern president has only twice, in 1934 and 2002, not lost House seats in his first midterm.

Losses though are not losing. Democrats' advantages remain "formidable," as Fabrizio put it. But conversations with Fabrizio betray an unusual pang of optimism. In recent years, Fabrizio has been remarkably forthright about the GOP decline. The odds may still be long. But Fabrizio believes Republicans "certainly could" win back the House in 2010. Could is not will. But it captures a sanguine outlook unseen among Republicans in years.

"I am optimistic," Fabrizio said, "because it's not often that you can get off the gurney when you are about to die. We are being given that chance."

The package was *sent* this past week. I almost fell over when the teller told me that it would cost me $91 to ship a 13-pound package to Alaska.

Instead...?

I sent it off for $24.28. :0)

Tara should get it in two weeks.

Our CLEARWIRE has hit a snag. It turns out that we don't have enough of a signal throughout the apartment--because of positioning, the trees, and satellite dish issues--so we're going to have to wait until next month to pick up a router so that we can use it without incident.

Social Security sent me another 'love letter'--this time, telling me that I will *have* to pay the $20,000+ back to them; "based on facts" and that I will have to set up a payment schedule.

Problem is, I don't have enough money to begin paying ANYTHING, and secondly...?

I would be very interested in knowing what "facts" they have to base their decision on.

I'll find out on Monday.

Edited by author 11-02-2009 06:05 PM
We mangaged to get everything done for *this* month. Tomorrow, I plan on sending Tara a package to Alaska.

I just hope that I have enough money in which to do it in.

She's going to get a few DVDs I found in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart, some deoderant, shampoo and conditioner, a box of candy bars, 2 containers of candy corns and a few other things.

This has to be sent *now*--as opposed to LATER--because I don't want anything to dry out or expire.

Her other package has the writers' mags, some of my how-to books (which I'm loaning to her for the next couple of years) and a few more DVDs I've acquired over the past couple of years.

That and the STAR TREK model won't be sent until February.

I send her something every few years or so--these last ten years that we've been pen-pals--and don't expect anything in return.

It's just something that I do--so I can spread a little happiness around and lift my spirits up a bit. :0)

The weekend was a bit nuts--especially since its the first of the month. I found what I wanted in DVDs and a CD, and we also stocked up on TP for the next 2 months.

December's going to be chaotic and so is January. (Since our portion of the rent will be $101 a month.)

This week--crossing fingers--we should finally be able to get CLEARWIRE.

But if it costs more than $50 to activate, we're going to have to wait till February to try again. (When we're both free up from getting the things we want: April wants a flatscreen for Christmas, and I elected to push the PS3 to January--for my upcoming 36th birthday. (I've been skipping my birthdays for the better part of the last 15 years now.) )