2010 Senate Election update--Time to start handicapping the races

With 2010 upon us, it's finally time to get busy with some real races for Senate! Fortunately for the political junkies like myself, 2010 started with a bang. Two Democratic Senators decided not to seek re-election in 2010 (Byron Dorgan-ND, Christopher Dodd--CT). While this is certainly cause for celebration in the GOP circles, let's break down the races that will matter.

I'll skip some of the less competitive races (Schumer, Gillibrand, Leahy, Feingold, Murry, Widen and Mikulski are shoo-ins from Brand D. Coburn, DeMint, Issakson, Thune, and Murkowski are GOP Locks). The rest have their own interesting features. I'll see if I can break this down in some semblance of order.

Celebrity Death Matches:

If you like celebrities, 2010 Senate races may be the place for you:

1. Connecticut--The retirement of Chris Dodd actually HELPS the Democrats tremendously. The Republican challengers (of which there are a few), are led by Wrestling Magnate, CEO of the WWE Linda McMahon, who had made cleaning up Washington from the hands of Dodd her message. With Dodd out, and "eternal General" AG Richard Blumenthal finally taking off the label of Connecticut's most prominent Democrat NOT to run for office, this race is Blumenthals' to lose. I'd be surprised if he did, but not shocked. Blumenthal's been reluctant to run for higher office for some reason, and I think we may find he has all of the campaign command of a John McCain. Still, this is a very blue state, and Democratic anger at Joe Lieberman on the Health Care handling could actually cause a boost for Blumenthal. Call this a Democratic "save".

2. California--Republican Carly Fiorina has a compelling case for her race against Liberal hero Barbara Boxer. The ex-CEO of Hewlett Packard looks like the leader for the GOP nomination at this point. Unfortunately for Fiorina, Boxer has money, seniority, survival instinct, and demographics on her side. Fiorina has not proven to be a tremendous political force thusfar, but she has intelligence and business experience on her side. That could be a positive. Could be a negative, if people see well-paid CEO's as the cause of their economic grief. I think Boxer will hold the seat.

3. Louisiana--What a race. Diaper-donning Dave Vitter will go up against, among others, Porn Star Mary Carey, who looks to be in the race primarily to highlight Vitter's moral indiscretions. In the end, Vitter will win, and make it a clean sweep for politicians vs. business and porn star celebrities.

Retirement Replacements (and boy are there a LOT!)

1. Ohio--Republican George Voinovich is retiring, and the battle of former Bush Economic Advisor Rob Portman vs. Jennifer Brunner (OH Secretary of State). It looks like a slight edge for Brunner, but Portman is smart, and Ohio has had a terrible time with the economic downturn. A continued economic depression in Ohio would spell trouble for Brunner, and Portman has not been as socially conservative as some in the Tea Bag movement would prefer. However, Portman's had a solid track record, and will potentially pose a formidable challenge. At this point, I'll give the edge to Brunner, but we'll keep an eye on this race going forward.

2. Delaware--Mike Castle is going to run for the open seat vacated by Joe Biden. Ted Kaufman is not going to run for the seat, and Democratic favorite Beau Biden (Joe's son) has not yet announced. Even if he does, initial polling shows Castle has a slight lead. However, Castle is going to have his hands full, in a blue state, and he is NOT considered a favorite in Conservative circles. However, most Republicans would agree that an 80% GOP vote is better than whatever Biden would give them. Let's call this one leaning Republican, but on the watch list.

3. Illinois--Roland Burris is not going to re-run, which makes the Democrats happy. Mark Kirk will put up a tremendous fight, and I would not be at all surprised to see him win. However, Alex Ginnoulias will run, and probably win, given the nature of the state, and the fact that the Obama administration will not let their home state slip into GOP hands without a fight. Leans Democratic.

4. New Hampshire--with Judd Gregg retiring, this seat could well flip to the Democrats in a state that has turned increasingly blue in recent years. That being said, Republican AG Kelly Ayotte is polling well against Democratic Rep Paul Hoades. She is leading in many polls, and if the economic factors continue to hold steady, a GOP hold on this seat is likely. Let's call this one leaning Republican.

5. Kansas--Sam Brownback is retiring. Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran are going to battle for the seat. The problem for Democrats is that both of these men are Republicans. With Kathleen Sebelius joining the Obama administration, there is no real challenger for this seat in the Democratic party. This is a definite hold for Republicans.

6. Missouri--with Kit Bond's retirement, the race between Robin Carnahan and Roy Blunt should be close. In a state that went for McCain in the past election, Missouri should be a state that leans Republican generally, and in this case, I would have expected Blunt to be leading. However, Carnahan has a political machine in the state, and is currently the favorite to win the race. Let's call this one leaning Democratic, but on the watch list.

7. North Dakota--Byron Dorgan's retirement has opened the door for Republican Governor John Hoeven to run for a seat that he will almost assuredly win. This will be a nice pick up for the GOP in a state that should not have as many Democratic representatives as it has.

8. Florida--Mel Martinez is retiring, and the nomination of Charlie Crist should have locked up the state for the GOP. Only one problem. It looks like all the momentum is on the side of Conservative Marco Rubio. Should Rubio win, I'd have to call him the favorite over Democratic challenger Kendrick Meeks. However, it's certainly a race between the two. Should Meeks win, it could really highlight the problem in the GOP of Moderates vs. Conservatives.

9. Kentucky--Jim Bunning is retiring, which means there's a chance that a rational, sane representative will finally be elected from Kentucky. The question is who. Ted Grayson and Ron Paul's son, Rand Paul will battle out the GOP nomination. Dan Mongiardo is running for the Democrats, and as Lieutenant Gov, has some support. However, this is a pretty easy call. The GOP will retain the seat. The question will be whether Grayson or Paul will get the position.

Economic Upturn or big time head fake?

"It's always darkest just before it goes totally black..." John McCain--2008 Presidential Campaign.

With jokes like this, it's a small wonder how Barack Obama could have ever beaten him in the election last year. But as of the middle of November, I was beginning to think he had a point. Layoffs seemed to never stop, the economic news was at best, spotty, Congress was paralyzed by health care, the dollar was falling like a rock.

But it seemed like just when I had written off the economy, and was ready to embrace the Peter Schiff world viewpoint with open arms, a funny thing happened. Instead of total blackness, the dawn started to emerge. Friends of mine who had been laid off were starting to find jobs. Clients I had been trying to sell to for a year and a half, ALL started to buy. In small doses, but in a couple of cases, in large quantities. So I watched to see if the November jobs report came in with any force. At 11,000 net jobs lost, we had basically climbed all the way back to break even. So I started to gain some cautious optimism.

I say cautious, because this has always been a time of year when companies buy services due to budget overhang. My thought was that perhaps companies simply budgeted some spend on my services, but hadn't used them up to now. They have realized that there is a baseline of business that hasn't gone away, and some issues and inventory that they need to deal with and maintain. So they have reached out. This is one possibility. If this turns out to be the case, I will consider the "light at the end of the tunnel", to be merely a train looking to run me over. However, this feels different.

I am still very concerned about the dollar's weakness, and fear it may never come back. A recent trip overseas opened my eyes to the reality of just how expensive the rest of the world is these days, and how important it is for me to be diversified into some overseas markets.

That being said, I'm encouraged by the fact that we still have a highly educated population, ingenuity, and, as recent news would indicate, we are not alone in having financial and domestic unrest. In other words, things may be bad here, but we're not Dubai, Greece, or Hungary...yet.

And there's more good news. TARP has proven to be much less of a disaster than anticipated. This "$700 Billion waste of money" has been getting repaid by all of the top banks, at $20B a pop. It wouldn't shock me in the least to see us get just about the whole thing back. Cash for clunkers was such a disaster that auto sales were supposed to just plummet this fall. Only they didn't. Which leads me to the conclusion that perhaps this inane government plan that could NEVER work, in reality actually worked. The homeowner credit, the cash for caulkers credits, and all the rest, may actually help people to revive a moribund economy, bit by bit.

For all the talk about Obama's lack of achievements, I'd suggest he's done quite a lot this year. After all, he's passed a stimulus bill, the unemployment acceleration has been completely stalled, and has basically gone to zero, the automobile industry has swung up, with help from Cash for clunkers, TARP is being agressively repaid, he's made key decisions on Afghanistan (which I DONT agree with, but that's another story), and by the beginning of next year, will have passed a health care bill, which may need some work, but at least moves in the right direction on providing a basic necessity to all Americans in a cost competitive model. Somewhere in there, he even found time to accept a nobel peace prize. What did YOU accomplish this past year?

But to bring it all back to my original point, we'll see how well the economy rebounds here, but I'm cautiously optimistic that on December 29, 2009, things look FAR better than they did on December 29, 2008! Happy New Year to all! Best wishes for 2010. I'm looking forward to some election battles and nasty campaigns!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

I will have another real post right after this, but I am looking for some feedback on what appears to be the least festive and friendly Christmas Carol going. We were standing around the piano last week singing "We wish you a Merry Christmas...", and we somehow got to thinking about the lyrics.

The more I thought about it, the more rude and inappropriate the song began to seem. Following the lyrics along, it appears as if a guest at the Christmas festivities seems interested only in wishing a Merry Christmas for the sake of a figgy pudding (which at some point in history must have been a tasty holiday treat). This line is followed by an even more inappropriate ultimatum (we won't go until we get one!). I'm not sure how this song represents the kind of holiday cheer and selflessness that is expected (or that Jesus would have wanted, for that matter) during Yuletide.

However, I'm not calling for an outright ban on the Christmas Carol yet, because that would be...well...stupid.

Happy Holidays everyone! Make your Yuletide gay. aRGH! There's another carol that needs to be recalled! This whole thing needs a review and some congressional oversight...

What is a Geithner to do!?

I have watched with amusement, as Tim Geithner has been berated by the Republican (and a couple of Democratic) Senators and Congressmen on his policy decisions, and the state of the economy. I watch people accuse him of being soft on the dollar--as if he has a choice. I just want to ask those people calling for his resignation this question: What would you have him do?

Geithner doesn't set the Fed policy on interest rates, nor does he control the Fed's money supply--that's Bernanke's job. Timmy doesn't set fiscal spending policy, nor does he set tax rates--these are Congress and the President's jobs. He can put forth policies to improve both the regulatory review and oversight of the banks, as well as help devise the policies of the treasury, administer TARP, and other such things, and, despite all news to the contrary, this has not been the complete disaster that it has been portrayed as in the press.

Certainly some decisions of the President (bailing out AIG, GM and Chrysler, for example) have been costly, and returns have ranged from incomplete (AIG), to poor (GM) to just foolishly bad (Chrysler). If people want to point to this as the reason to jettison Geithner and bring in someone like Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan, I can't totally argue that this position isn't valid.

But to think that we can blame Geithner for a weak dollar is a little like blaming the Jews for killing Jesus. It may feel good to find an easy scapegoat, but history, and facts on the ground show that things are far more complicated.

Let's try to understand why the US Dollar is in free fall, and sinking fast. For starters, we as a country don't produce what we consume, we don't export any goods or services, and we don't have any fiscal discipline to show that we can support the debts that we service, with dollars that will be worth what they are worth today, in 2, 5, 10, or 30 years. We are in a HUGE fiscal deficit each year, and have a large debt to show for it. I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have done the stimulus (although I can think of a couple of wars that we shouldn't be in!), but it's silly to think that we can continue to run deficits and people will continue to buy dollars for security and strength purposes. Why should they?

For that matter, why the heck should you or I do it!? I'm all for patriotism, but I still want to be able to have a job, and feed my family too. After all, countries such as Canada have shown far greater fiscal discipline, have lower business taxes, great natural resources, and export goods and services at a tremendous rate. Why shouldn't I invest in a Canadian dollar, or Canadian based ETF? Look at the financial services sector. Is it any wonder that large Canadian companies own pieces of America's Investment and Insurance houses? John Hancock? MFS Investments? Putnam Investments? All Canadian owned now. This trend will continue. In about 10 years, each of the major financial institutions we see as American Icons will become foreign owned subsidiaries. Why?

Because it's too cheap for foreign banks and financial institutions to resist. I will grant you that Europe has its own house to put in order, but the Euro is at $1.50:1. It used to be about $0.95:1. What that means is that America became about 60% cheaper than it was 10 years ago. So if I had a Euro, and it used to get me 95 cents, it now buys me $1.60 in the same real dollars. Take a look at Australia, Canada, or Singapore's conversion rates sometime. They are all moving in the same direction. It's not that they are stronger, but rather we are weaker.

So to those of you arguing that it's China's fault, and that they've pegged their Yuan to the dollar, causing an unfair trade imbalance, I ask you this. Do you think we'd be in better shape if they allowed the Yuan to float?

I'd suggest to you that it would be catastrophic. All of the "cheap goods" from China would be 20% more expensive overnight. We'd see inflation here instantly. Since we don't make anything in the US anymore, all of our "trade imbalances" would remain, we'd pick up some jobs, but we'd lose far more in the wreck of hyperinflation, and soaring interest rates, to try to quell the debasement of currency. I can only imagine the billions of dollars that any foreign government would want to invest in our dollar-backed government bonds. "buy US Bonds! They'll be worth 50% less in 2 years!" There's a winning slogan...

So I get back to the question--What's a Treasury Secretary to do? If I were Timmy, I'd be socking money away in Swiss Francs, Silver bullion, and golden eagles. Perhaps an Australian gold mine or two shouldn't be far down the list either. Who knows? Maybe it is time to turn over the keys to the chicken coop to the foxes, let Dimon run treasury, and we can be done with Sarbanes Oxley, and party like it's 1999! Worked for Enron...for a while, anyway...

America Sucks

I'll start this piece by saying that I'm an American, I live here, and I do love and support my country. I'd love to see us return to a country that can lead the world again, with our innovation, strength and intelligence.

However, right now, we suck. I keep hearing people talk about "American Exceptionalism", as if it's a given, and if you don't support the idea, that you are somehow anti-American. Well I'm absolutely PRO-American, and I'm also claiming that, right now, we are in no POSITIVE way, exceptional.

I'd love for someone to explain to me what exactly we are exceptional at. I can list off the things that we are extremely ORDINARY at, and a few things we are exceptionally BAD at.

• Creating jobs--we stink. Asia's pulling out of recession. Brazil's survived, and is on the way up. We have more unemployment than the Europeans we had taken to making fun of for their high unemployment rates. And the jobs we create don't support a bustling economy that can grow and create further jobs.
• Fiscal policy--we're not just bad, we're brutal, bordering on Mexico and Zimbabwe-bad. Deficits out for decades. Manufacturing leaving in droves. No small business plans to stimulate real, competitive production in the US. Even our labor jobs are going to cheaper immigrants, legal and illegal. Our tax policy is misguided, our trade agreements are one-sided, our ability to pay off our debt is non-existent, and our day of reckoning with the US dollar, and our obligations to sovereign nations is practically upon us. Won't it be a real hoot when we're all scrambling to accumulate Mexican Pesos and Argentine dollars for their strength and stability?
• Education--"We're number 30! We're number 30!" Glad to see we have our priorities in order.
• Health Care--again, we spend twice what every other first world country does, and get half the care. We can't cover 1 out of 6 people. We're going broke, in both the public and private care spaces. I appreciate the Republican's putting out their health care plan, so I can finally dispel the claim that it's all the fault of litigation. Their efforts to curb such "frivolous lawsuits" would save us $41 Billion over the next 10 years (or about $4B a year), ignoring the unfunded liability of tens of TRILLIONS. Spare me the crap about our system being the best in the world. It isn't. Period. We may have had the best doctors 10 years ago, but to think we have the best here, now, is at best a tenuous argument. I don't have any imperical evidence to say we're the best, but plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that we are in many ways, LESS able to care for even the sickest patients than other countries. Anyone going through an illness (serious or not) in the past 5-6 years can tell you that the system just doesn't work. It's funny how I only hear us in America saying that these other health care systems are broken. I don't hear the French or the British, or the Germans saying that...
• Innovation--What happened to us? All the best stuff is made overseas. All the best American invented stuff is made overseas. What happened to all the green jobs? Stuff's all made in Germany and China. What happened to high-speed rail? We got a $5/week tax cut instead (which got eaten up by my $10/week increase in health care premium increases...). What about scientific breakthroughs? A more fuel-efficient car? "Smart Grids"? Do we know how to do ANYTHING in America anymore?
• Defense/Military--Actually, we do ONE thing better than everyone else. We have the best soldiers, and the best bombs. So we can scare the crap out of everyone. That being said, all the bombs in the world can't convince Afghanistan or Iraq to like us or respect us. Just ask Mikhael Gorbachev about Afghanistan. The best line I ever heard about the Afghan-Soviet war was the Soviet General who said that "we bombed Afghanistan UP TO the stone age", and still couldn't win. I'm all for just wars, but there are reasons the French, Germans, and Russians don't like to fight in wars. They've all had their Afghanistans in the last 80 years (French--Algeria, Germans--WWII, Russians--well, Afghanistan). They learned their lessons. We had Vietnam, but it seems that we didn't learn OUR lesson. Because, hey, we're exceptional, and those other countries can't achieve what we can. We can change the will of soverign nations through force, right? Because I can't point to a single instance of such an endeavour working throughout history...

I'm not writing this because I'm happy about all this. I think my favorite Football team, the Washington Redskins, suck too. I complain bitterly about them, their personnel, their desire, their management, etc. But in the end, I still root for them, and support them, with the hopes that this will finally be the week that they turn it around, and return to glory.

I'm not ready to move to Luxembourg. My point, however, is that until we face up to the fact that the world has caught up to us, and is passing us by, we'll never get back to being leaders in the world. The world used to look up to us. Now they see us as fat, out of shape, past our prime, prone to irrational decisions and possibly violence. Once the world realizes they don't need our dollars anymore to survive, we'll truly have to look in the mirror, and realize that to be considered exceptional, you have to BE exceptional.

That day is upon us.

Getting Real About the US Budget

It's been a busy month, both personally, and in US policy. Health Care reform looks like a real possibility (although in what form still remains to be seen). Afghanistan is on the top of the President's mind. I've made my opinion clear on this (get out now). But it's time to start getting real about the elephant in the room (all references to the GOP aside). We're on the road to financial ruin. And reality is beginning to box us in.

"But Pundit..." you ask, "...weren't you FOR the Economic Stimulus? Aren't you FOR a government option for health care? Aren't you part of the problem..." All I can say to that is, "possibly..." But rather than argue this point, let's take a look at the current situation, and what can be done.

Here are the facts. And they are NOT in dispute:

• Projected budget inflows for the Federal Government in 2010--$2.33 Trillion
• Projected budget outflows for the Feds in 2010--$3.59 Trillion
• Projected deficit--$1.26 Trillion

Pretty scary. But I do get the idea that we've needed to kick-start the economy, and stave off a depression by keeping the faith and credit in our lending institutions and the dollar. That all has contributed to the deficits, and is probably okay.

Here's the problem. We have no good options to get out of this situation. The gap cannot be wiped out through economic good times alone, as even a 10% growth in tax receipts through improved employment figures won't alone contribute to the bottom line anywhere near the amounts needed to truly close the shortfall.

And this obsession by the Republicans about cutting the pork out of the budget, or "earmarks" is just beyond laughable. It takes our attention away from the true work that needs to be done. The savings on all these crazy projects, while it makes for good PR, and buys John McCain the title of "Maverick", it doesn't really make a dent in the overall problem. So let's look at the stuff in the budget that will really "move the needle" some, shall we?

• Medicare/Medicaid--$1.06 Trillion budget
• Department of Defense--$742 Billion budget
• Social Security--$749.1 Billion budget
• Public Debt interest--$454.5 Billion budget
• EVERYTHING ELSE--$580 Billion

Now, remind me what that deficit was again? Oh yeah, $1.2 Trillion a year. Don't think raising taxes is a good idea? Remember, a 10% increase in the GDP next year (which is HIGHLY unlikely, and could lead to inflationary or other fears) wouldn't get us more than a quarter of the way to solving the deficit problem. So what do we go after to cut?

Want to go after the Department of Labor? Think it's those damn liberals spending on Unions? You'll get $106 Billion in savings, but you'll also lose the $89 Billion set aside for unemployment benefits. Can't do it. People can't be thrown out in the streets. Even if you did, you'd still have $1.15 Trillion to cut, and I'll remind you of that decision if you get laid off...

How about Foreign aid? We must give a TON away to these poorer countries. Time to shut off the spigot! Well...in reality, that will save us about $12.9 Billion. We still have only $1.25 Trillion to go. It only costs us in the goodwill department. I think we've proven during the previous administration that good foreign relations aren't really that important.

Do I need to keep going?

• Housing and Urban Development? Only $54.8 Billion
• Education? $100 Billion
• NASA? $18.4 Billion
• Transportation? $90.5 Billion (half of that is fixing roads...)

All that together, and you STILL have over $800 Billion to go before balancing the budget.

Can we get serious now?

The places we need to cut, to even start to SEE fiscal responsibility are HARD.

Defense--Time for tough choices. Let's forget the geopolitical ramifications of this for a moment, and discuss the costs saved with a pull out in BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. War supplementals of $183 Billion. Now, let's look at a 10% reduction in purely Procurement, Operations and Maintenance (the cost of our defense weaponry, tanks, etc). That's only going to net us about $40B in costs. Despite what our Liberal base tells us, the costs of the Defense budget is not as full of excess, nor is it as easy to cut, as they would have you believe. Still, a 10% reduction, while SIGNIFICANT, still doesn't close the gap all the way. But let's make these two cuts for argument's sake:

Costs Saved: $223 Billion

Medicare/Medicaid--This is the behemoth! How do you save dollars here? Do we let the government negotiate prescription drug rates? Do we tackle fraud, waste and abuse? Can we really save $80 Billion a year that way? I would suggest that if we cannot, we must at least cap the rate of increase for the premiums paid to the doctors at the rate of inflation. It's going to suck royally for doctors, but the only way this truly works is if we move to a single payer, or public option, because the doctors are going to pass the cuts along to the taxpayers, in the form of higher charges on private insurers. But that's a different discussion, different day. Somehow, we need to get these capped, and find an additional $150 Billion in savings:

Costs Saved: $180 Billion

Social Security--I don't know what you can do here, other than continue to lie about the rate of inflation, and start to creep up the initial age one can draw on the funds provided. This could yield about a $20-30 Billion savings, but in the end, may not do much better.

Costs Saved: $30 Billion

I can't find more savings without a meat cleaver, so let's take our $450 Billion in savings, and combine it with additional tax increases of $400 Billion (IF the economy comes back, and IF the Bush taxes on the top 1% are allowed to expire, and if...), and at least show that cutting the deficit to about $4-500 Billion the next two to three years is achievable. Past that, perhaps a renegotiation of the debt could yield some benefit on the interest owed, but I would see that difference as minimal.

None of my suggested changes are even politically viable anyway, so perhaps we can continue to debate things like federal funds for abortion clinics, flag pins, gay marriage, and the like, while we slowly devalue the dollar, ship our jobs and skills overseas, and end up a third world nation over the next 10 years. Because let's face it, who's going to buy the next round of debt we offer?

Personally, that idea of a carry trade with Swiss Francs or Singapore dollars, looks better every day...

To President Obama--Prove you are worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize

So our President has now won the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. This is amazing. I wasn't aware he was even up for the award. I keep thinking this is a joke, and I'll have to pull this post down. But this is an interesting achievement, and one that will get some play for the man from Chicago/Hawaii/Kansas/Indonesia/Kenya...well, let's just say from all over.

For starters, it really shows me how a simple move back to diplomacy, something most of our past Presidents have employed as part of their typical governing approach, could be so welcomed by the rest of the world. Simply addressing the rest of the world with an open hand, rather than a closed fist may sound simple naive, but it has already achieved much. The positive relationships with Russia, China, Europe, and even much of the Middle East have been so torn asunder by the events of the past decade (some done TO us, some done BY us), that a move back to civil discourse was the only alternative to complete polarization--which had been the path of foreign policy until this year.

In the last two election cycles, people finally realized that we were not a nation of bullies and fighters. We were a nation of listeners, and of leaders. A nation who used force when it HAD to, not when it CHOSE to. And we continue to have hope that we have a leader who understands this, and is moving to match the foreign policy agenda to the reality of the world landscape.

BUT

We shall see if that really happens. My hope is that a success in Health Care, coupled with this honor of the Nobel Peace Prize, will give the President the courage to do the right thing, and END the mission in Afghanistan. It is time.

We need to get our troops home from Afghanistan, and from Iraq. It's been far too long to spend our money and soldiers on a mission that is NOT achievable. Notice I did NOT use the cop-out language of "mission that is not defined". I think we all know why we're in Afghanistan. At least we know why we went originally. And I agreed with that decision...back then.

But we are no longer achieving the mission we set out to achieve. And we cannot achieve this mission, as long as we are seen as the occupying force in these countries--unable to ever fully root out this "evil" that our previous President kept referring to. And THAT, sadly, is not going to change, while we are still in these countries with 200,000+ forces and countless mercenaries, shooting at anyone that wears a "black hat".

We can't achieve the mission because it is unachievable. The best I can understand it is that we don't want the Taliban to rule Afghanistan because they will let al Qaeda back in, set up camps, and attack us again. So we shoot at the Taliban, and sometimes the locals, and hope that the people of this country will somehow rise up and take back their native lands, and do our bidding on our behalf--rooting out al Qaeda and the Taliban, and ultimately, Bin Laden himself (remember him!?).

Sound like a plan? Somehow we've conflated this goal into the ultimate winning or losing struggle. "If we don't win this game, we're doomed". I don't understand why we should even be playing. Our odds of achieving this aim can't be better than 1 in 5. And for that long shot, we'll waste time, money and resources (lives!) so that, in a BEST case scenario, we only have to fight our enemies in 10 OTHER places around the globe. Sorry. This dog don't hunt no more. Time to pull the plug.

Here's hoping Obama has the guts to make the right call.

About-Face on Afghanistan

For a long time, I've been a supporter of the efforts in Afghanistan, to support a "fledgling democracy", to root out the Taliban, and to hunt for Osama bin Laden. But I think an "about-face" is not only preferable, it's needed.

I keep watching the news reports about General Stanley McChrystal's push for a renewed "surge" of sorts, in Afghanistan. But there's no good reason to be in Afghanistan. Let's look at the reasons to stay, and the reasons to go.

Reasons to stay:

1. Fighting al-Qaeda--really? I heard the common line of "fighting them there, so we don't fight them here..." I think it's a bunch of bull. Recent arrests in Denver, and numerous bombings around the world, from London and Spain, to a resurgence of al-Qaeda in Somalia and other North African and Arabian Peninsula countries would indicate that putting all of our troops in Afghanistan doesn't really serve our interests too well on this front.

2. Fighting the Taliban--again, REALLY? This is the group that gave Osama bin Laden refuge. So did the Sudan. Heck, we could make a case to remove a number of bad guys around the world for harboring terrorists. Not only that, but we can't force a country the size of Afghanistan to root out the Taliban on its own. This is a country that lived under Taliban rule for years, had it forcibly removed, and would allow itself to be re-occupied by the same group 9 years later? Seriously? Why are we going to spend decades and trillions of dollars to stop this from happening again?

3. Getting Osama bin Laden--This is actually a good rationale for going into Afghanistan. I do think that makes sense. This guy attacked us on our soil, and around the world for years before 2001. But that doesn't seem to be the strategy in Afghanistan today. He's kind of like an ancillary benefit of the war. "Fight the bad guys in Afghanistan, and by the way, if you find Osama, kill him too..." Not exactly a rallying cry the likes of Henry the Fifth at Agincourt.

4. "Can't back down, or the Terrorists win..."--Can we just end the schoolyard theatrics already? Are we really interested in spending our money and pride so foolishly? Since when did we sink, as a nation, down to the level of such jingoistic BS? I won't allow such foolish pride to cloud my judgement on this issue. Certainly, those who would oppose a pull out in Afghanistan, but support killing any domestic spending program "for budget reasons", isn't looking at the same world stage I am.

Reasons to Leave:

1. Money--The National Priorities Project puts the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at over $900B, or $150B a year roughly, that is spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. Assuming Afghanistan is even 1/3rd of that outlay, a $50B a year, or $500B over 10 years reduction in our government spending could make up any public health care option shortfall. OR, it could certainly close the budget gap a lot quicker than John McCain's "War on Pork Barrel spending", which costs Americans a whopping...what....$8B a year? Glad to see McCain's got his priorities in order...

2. Lack of Objectives--What are we there for again? American pride? Fight the terrorists? Support the government in Afghanistan? Somebody make a case for this war (spare me the usual "you just don't get it..." BS rationales. And for Pete's sake, spare me the "...we were attacked on 9/11 because of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan". I understand having vigilance, and perhaps an off-shore presence. What I don't understand is upwards of 50,000 troops there to shoot at ghosts, and get picked off by snipers on a regular basis. Don't confuse the objectives for the rallying cry.)

3. Rebuilding of relationships with our allies and diplomacy with our adversaries--Obama has started this in earnest. Have we not already seen what shooting first has done for us? We have a lot of damage to undo. I'm glad to see that America is leading the charge in respectful dialogue around the globe once again.

I am not conflicted in this issue any more. It's time to leave Afghanistan. Cut the funding, get the soldiers home, and let's call it a success (it wasn't, and isn't much of a "war", so I'm not sure Victory is really the right word for either side).

Make way for SENATOR Obama

On November 4, 2008, almost 70 Million Americans cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, Senator Barack Obama, to become the next President of the United States. Many of these people chose Obama's messages of change and put in this new President, their hopes and dreams of a better day in America.

And we got the man we wanted. The problem, however, has been this. In his attempts to "build consensus", Obama has proven to be not the Presidential leader, but rather the 101st Senator from "America". His leadership on positions and issues has not come with clear messages to his party on what he'd like to pass. Rather, he's allowed the Max Baucus's and Kent Conrads to dominate the dialogue, and has catered to Ben Nelson's every need, in order to get a watered down version of whatever legislation he was originally seeking.

And Conrad, Nelson, Bayh, and Baucus have been more than happy with the circumstances--giving them the platform and clout they seek to gain fundraising for their next campaigns, appear to be "moderates" with their majority Red-state constituencies.

The problem with the current situation, however, is that Obama has a real agenda, but he's not articulated the specifics of the deals. Recently, he "wimped out" on his movement towards normalizing relations with Cuba, continuing the current relationship status for another year. Clearly this was a backpedal on an issue that would have caused waves with certain elements of the population. Why do we keep a draconian policy in place when the benefits of such actions have far outlived their usefulness? Are we anticipating an imminent attack from Havana on our shores, and all that stands in the way is that darn trade embargo?

Spare me the lecture on Castro's role in the Cuban missile crisis, or Grenada, or even Nicaragua. Clearly isolating him hasn't stopped his influence on the Hugo Chavez's of the world, and at 80+ years old, I don't think there's an imminent plan on his horizon to take over Costa Rica, or Alabama, or whatever.

Yet Obama made the move that most SENATORS would make--consensus, and give a little to get a little. No movement on this issue means keeping it off the table, while you fight for health care.

But his moves on Health Care, and even on the Stimulus, for that matter, were bold initiatives that required someone to stand up and say "this is my position! Here's why it helps the Most Americans! etc, etc". Instead Obama put the legislation ideas forward, and then let Rahm Emmanuel twist the arms, let Max Baucus and Kent Conrad drive the deal cutting where they are bargaining basically against themselves. Obama has yet to make the case to the American people that he should get his way, all soaring rhetoric to the contrary.

Without someone to stand up and say "here's what I believe in!", the only other voices out there that can be heard are the Glenn Becks, and Birthers, and the rest of the nut-jobs who need access only to a bull-horn, a cell phone camera, or a Fox News Correspondent.

Despite endless press conferences, Obama looks ever more ineffectual, ever more meek, and ever more timid in his approach to issues. We see it in business all the time. Someone gets promoted into a new role, and perhaps they are smart enough, but don't yet believe in their message, or leadership skills. They appear timid, and allow stronger personalities around them to dominate initially. It's sad, really, because Obama is the best orator in the game. The best player on the court. But he is like the kid brother who has outgrown his father, but still loses the head-to-head matches because he lets his father psyche him out.

Obama seems to be confused at this vitriol from the Republicans, and as the Independents of the nation watch to see how he reacts, they are increasingly dismayed at his lack of sturdiness. He seems easily knocked off message. Unable to do much more than deliver a line. If John Boehner, Joe Wilson, or Glen Beck can do that to Obama, what could Putin do? It's an answer the Obama camp had better come up with quick.

All that being said, I still think as President, Obama has made a lot of strategically excellent decisions. A year after Lehman Brothers collapsing, we are in much better shape economically, and fiscally, than I ever thought we'd be. Yes, we are in a deficit hole that's exceptionally large, but the alternative of depression and deflation is not the kind of movie I'd want to see. I think March of 2009 was enough of a preview for my liking.

In the end, Obama has failed to take leadership positions on major policy initiatives, from Afghanistan and Iraq, to global warming, to energy. He's tried hard, and advanced 8 efforts at the same time, but nothing has actually come to pass that would offer real change. It's like my boss tells me, "I'd rather have 100% of 3 things done than 3% of 100 things done." The point is, Obama needs to choose some initiatives, push his agenda, and get it done. The nice guy, "let the Congress sort it out" approach has led to speculation on Death Panels, socialism, and all the rest.

This Senatorial approach to running the Executive Branch has left his party confused and leaderless, and emboldened the minority party into stalmateing every initiative, or crippling them. This is the definition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory on each legislative initiative. If Obama isn't careful, he will end up with the albatross around his neck of another nice guy but ineffectual leader--Jimmy Carter.

The Modern Republican Party

It's been an interesting time to watch politics. Not for the hot races (although there are a couple). But for the action in the protests, and the town halls. I've been scratching my head trying to understand the appeal of people like Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, Mike Huckabee, and even a Rush Limbaugh.

I'm not sure I'll ever get the appeal of their ideology, but I think I'm starting to understand why they are the face of the Republican Party these days.

There is no current Republican Politician in the government that really represents and articulates the Conservative point of view these days. It's brutal. No wonder the Conservative heartland looks to the Hannitys, Roves, and Cheneys for leadership. I tried to take a real, hard look at the current leadership, and I almost felt like Alexander the Great, who cried when he recognized there were no more worlds to conquer. Unlike Alexander, I DO think the Republican Party will endure, and I agree with the odds makers giving them a 1 in 3 chance of taking back the House in 2010. However, if they do, this current crop of leaders isn't exactly the stuff of legends.

Mitch McConnell--about as inspirational as Harry Reid. He's been somewhat effective in blocking some Democratic policy, but for the most part, has not been able to stop the Obama freight train. And lets face it, he's been the leader of a shrinking party since he took over. He barely won his own state in re-election, and if the Republicans took over the Senate in 2010, perhaps its time to look to someone like John Thune for a makeover of the face of the party.

John Boehner--Speaking of faces of the party. What color is the sun in Ohio anyway? Why is he always orange? The guy cries on the floor, and whines and complains like a teenager. Seriously, if you took some of his speeches and put them in Miley Cyrus's mouth, they would sound like, well a typical teenager. Which leads to Boehner's #2...

Eric Cantor--About as appealing as watching toast on television. He's no Gingrich or Delay in the making. Civil, soft-spoken, and, well, he reminds me a little of Harry Reid as well. Or perhaps Tom Daschle.

John Kyl--This guy is no Conservative. He's no great leader. But he backs it up by being uninteresting on the stump too.

What is a Conservative to do? There really is NO ONE who represents their ideology in the top echelons of the Party. Michael Steele? Forget it! For people who are true believers, the only outlet for their frustration are the Palins, Huckabees, Mark Levins, and others on the Right. It's comfort food, as much as MSNBC is for Liberals.

I can't fault people for wanting to listen to what they want to listen to. But I do find it interesting that, with the death of Kennedy, the Liberals feel that their great leader is gone. They now know what Conservatives have been feeling like since 1/20/09, and in many ways, since 1989, when Reagan rode off into the sunset. Unfortunately for the Conservative Right, it won't change much for 14 more months. Fortunately for Conservatives, current trends are their friends. So keep your chin up, and get out and vote for candidates that support your vision for the world. Lots of races to win. Things can change. Ask the Liberals who were so destitute after 2004...