Tim Pawlenty on Meet the Press

I'm having doubts, maybe McCain should have picked him.

Update: After Palin's speech on Wednesday, I can say, McCain made the right choice. No way Pawlenty could have delivered that speech. No way Pawlenty could bring the house down like she did. No way Pawlenty could bring in 37 million viewers. Wow.

Food for Thought

Say John Kerry had run for President again and received the Democratic nomination. He picks Virgina Gov. Tim Kaine as his VP nominee, a newcomer on the national scene who is relatively inexperienced. Now flip it, say Tim Kaine received the Democratic nomination and he picked John Kerry. Here's the question...

What ticket would you be more comfortable with, a Kerry-Kaine ticket or a Kaine-Kerry ticket?

I would be much more comfortable voting for Kerry-Kaine, with experience at the top of the ticket.

Given the current political predicament, the choice is clear, McCain-Palin.

Back to College

Oh fun.

Blogging might be slow for awhile. Or not.

Sarah Palin: The Seven Million Dollar Woman

McCain gets a bounce, a big bounce.

Sen. John McCain has taken in $7 million in contributions since announcing Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, a top campaign aide said today.

The money bounce may owe to Palin's appeal with conservative donors, many of whom said privately they had planned on sitting out the campaign this year. The money comes in just under the wire -- after McCain accepts the GOP nomination Thursday, he will accept public funds and no longer be permitted to raise private money for the campaign.

That will not, however, stop McCain and Palin from raising money for the Republican National Committee. In coming weeks, McCain will host four megafundraising events in major cities aimed at bolstering the accounts of the party. Palin, meanwhile, will be sent out to headline more than a dozen fundraising events for the RNC.

Again, could Tim Pawlenty have pulled this off? I highly doubt it.

Pawlenty was still the safe choice for VP though (as Evan Bayh was for Obama). He would have been boring, but at least we wouldn't have a media frenzy over his experience like that with Palin (whether it is deserved or undeserved). Yet again, safe choices don't always bring out the voters and with Obama drawing in 85,000 people to hear him speak, maybe Palin was the right choice.

What is next for the McCain campaign? What will the independents think? I'm voting for the ticket, will America?

Update: Reuters segment...

The Case for Sarah Palin

The Obama camp (along with the media) is getting in a tizzy about Sarah Palin's experience. I think neo-neocon describes the situation best...

Dissing Palin’s small-town mayoral experience…

…doesn’t strike me as the smartest move on the part of the Obama campaign.

First of all, that’s more executive experience than Obama has ever had. Second of all, it’s been superceded by the fact that she also has some experience as Governor—an executive office of even greater magnitude—and has done rather well. In fact, her tenure as Governor is longer than Obama’s time as Senator before he left the job to begin campaining.

I begin to wonder just how smart Obama’s advisors are (actually, that’s a lie; in fact, I’ve been wondering for quite some time). Dissing small town experience isn’t designed to appeal to those bitter clingers of Pennsylvania or elsewhere. It plays right into the “condescending elitist” charge against the Democratic candidate.

Oh, Obama. The most inexperienced candidate in modern American history complains about Palin’s experience. Really, that’s something. First of all, Obama is running for president, a position of governance. In the past, senatorial experience wasn’t even considered a qualification for President (JFK had a decade more experience in the U.S. legislature than Obama and was still considered inexperienced). He should be lucky to be in the position he is in today (it helps when the media loves you).

Yet now the media is in an uproar and the Obama camp is trying to compare executive credentials, criticism amok. How can McCain put someone just as inexperienced as Obama a “heartbeat” away from the presidency? How dare he! Well for one, as Neo pointed out, she has led a state for two years, what has Obama led? Nothing. Moreover, this talk of Palin shouldn’t even matter, McCain is running for President, not her. A VP doesn’t do a whole lot. I know everyone has been living under the umbrella of Dick Cheney for 8 years, yet realistically it is not that glamorous. You get to do task forces on petty things like drugs and meeting diplomats whose names you can’t pronounce. There isn’t going to be another Cheney no matter who is elected and we shouldn’t be faking ourselves into thinking there will be one.

Also, the kicker, what if the 72 year old cancer survivor POW who has “horrible” health dies (did I mention he is old and he is literally about to die any day now? Oh sorry, that’s the media’s job)? Well, what happens? Does chaos break out? Oh god! Just think of the implications, Armageddon! Yes, let’s look at this. Obama picked Biden to ensure people safety, to tell them to not worry about his experience. In the unlikely case McCain does die, naturally, Palin will select a VP for herself. It took about four months for Nelson Rockefeller to become VP during Ford. That's not a whole lot of time for disaster. If Sarah Palin picks say a Tom Coburn in the Republican party, would she be any better off than an Obama-Biden presidency? Huh? You were saying?

This election is about who will govern for the next four years. The two candidates for this position (excluding third party candidates) are John McCain and Barack Obama. They have running mates, yet the person on the top of the ticket gets final say. Anyways, shouldn't the more inexperienced person be at the bottom end of the ticket? Am I missing something here?

The big question: Does this mean Obama would have been disqualified as VP if he didn’t get the Democratic nomination for President?

McCain and Palin

The pick of Joe Biden was a sort of screwball to the McCain camp. If Obama had picked Evan Bayh, the McCain campaign would have contacted Tim Pawlenty. If Obama picked John Kerry, McCain would have picked Mitt Romney. If Obama picked Hillary Clinton, McCain would have picked Palin. But what to do with a Biden pick? He is experienced (more years in the Senate than McCain) and has no strategic value (i.e. the state of Delaware). So who could garner excitement while at the same time be a credible VP? Well it looks like McCain decided on Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Now personally, I think it was a good choice. Yet good choices are not necessarily risk free. As I have noted before...

Gov. Sarah Palin.
Positives: A fresh face onto the scene, she is considered a reformer like McCain. She is quick on her feet and can handle her own when being questioned. With the dissatisfaction of some Clinton supporters with Obama, putting her on the ticket could see a shift in female support for McCain.

Negatives: Doesn't have a lot of experience, which could take away a talking point from McCain (though to be honest, she still has more experience than Obama, defiantly in terms of executive experience). She differs with McCain on ANWR, which could produce some awkward statements on her behalf (unless McCain flips on ANWR) when it comes to energy policy. She is from a state that is considered safe for Republicans. She has a mini-scandal going on, which wouldn't hurt that much, yet with Republican Sen. Ted Stevens representing the state, there will be no passes by the media. Might give the base pause on some positions.

Palin is a possibility, though most likely an X.

So the negatives do stand, yet the positives are still strong ones. It was a choice I was shooting for (along with Pawlenty), while at the same time felt it was unlikely. McCain and Obama both surprised me with their picks, they went beyond strategic value (i.e. geographical). Good for them.

Sarah Palin: Reformer.

Update 1: More on Sarah Palin.

The Republican Party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain, has pulled a fast one on his Democratic opponents, who spent much of the last 19 months arguing over whether they'd be the party to have a female on their 2008 presidential ticket.

The rumor is true. As The Ticket reported just before dawn this morning, minutes ago, McCain confirmed that his vice presidential running mate is Sarah Alaska Governor Sarah Palin mother of five and lifetime National Rifle Association member and Republican presidential nominee senator John McCain's pick as his vice presidential running mate Palin, the first female governor of Alaska and the first woman on a national GOP ticket.

And hear this: The 44-year-old Palin, a former city councilwoman, Alaskan mayor, star high school basketball player and beauty queen, is a Republican political maverick (does this sound familiar on a McCain ticket?).

She overthrew her own state party's corrupt establishment in 2005-06 to run without its support and win on a reform ticket against a Democratic former governor, Tony Knowles. See video below.

The maverick ticket.

Update 2: I wonder why McCain picked her, maybe it has something to do with excitement. Could a Tim Pawlenty pull that off?

DNC Convention 2008: My Thoughts

Day 1:

Boring

Boring

Oh hey, Ted Kennedy. Might disagree with a lot of his positions, but good guy. This might be his last convention, it was good to see he made it.

Boring

Michelle Obama gives a decent speech.


Day 2:

Boring

Boring

Keynote Speaker, Mark Warner: My god, that has to be one of the most horrible audience responses I have ever heard in my life. The crowd was basically dead. This is a big contrast to Obama's 2004 speech (who was keynote speaker then), with an enthralled crowd with a sea of signs, that was something, this was a disaster. Apparently, there is rumor going around that he got pushed back because he wouldn't play attack dog.

Boring

Brian Schweitzer of Montana had that crowd going.

Hillary Clinton: Hit all the marks she needed to, will probably heal the PUMAs. Or not, who knows?

So far, I've been kind of disappointed. Now I'll admit, I haven't been glued to the screen, I flipped around a bit, got side tracked with some things, but this convention so far has been pretty tame. I remember in 2004, both conventions being great spectacles with great speeches. The crowds were into it and overall it was an experience. Where is the crowd? Why aren't they yelling at the top of their lungs for this "change" we hear so often about? C'mon now.

On another note, what horrible coverage by all networks. Both CNN and MSNBC are gushing in biased reporting for the DNC. This isn't to say Fox News was any better, THEY WENT TO A COMMERCIAL DURING THE KEYNOTE ADDRESS. I'll admit the speech by Warner sucked, but to do that was a tad disrespectful. The only channel that stayed objective and reasonable, which gave time for each speaker was PBS. Can't go wrong with PBS, right?

Updates on Day 3 and 4 coming soon.

Update 1: There is news on Obama's speech Thursday, apparently he will speak in front OF COLUMNS! You serious? Does Obama want to lose? Who is in control of his campaign? My god, Greek columns? Then there will be fireworks afterwards? I know before I said that this convention lacked the spectacle of the 2004 convention, but I didn't mean this. Thank god Obama isn't my candidate.

Update 2: More on the "Column speech" Obama will be delivering on Thursday. I wonder if he will also have someone whisper in his ear, "Memento mori." Just wondering.


Day 3

Mostly boring, though the crowd seems a little more energetic then the first two days.

Boring

Evan Bayh: Powerful speech, Obama should have picked him. So much more strategic value than Biden.

Jack Reed can't read a teleprompter.

By the way, I think I heard the words "commander in chief" tonight 100 times.

Bill Clinton got a very warm welcome (with great imagery, Americans flags). Pretty good speech. One very very interesting thing was that he made the case against Republicans, not necessarily Bush. I don't even think he mentioned the name "Bush." Interesting. Otherwise, best speech of the night.

Oh god, John Kerry makes a terrible attack dog. He also gives a horrible speech.

Beau Biden, great speaker.

Joe Biden: It was an alright speech.

Barack Obama doing an after warm up speech? Huh?

Best night of the three so far. Will Day 4 close the deal?


Day 4

The big day. A lot of people showed up.

Udall had no crowd support whatsoever. What a dweeb.

Kaine sounds cheery. I don't know why, he wasn't selected as VP. Where is the crowd support? "Move mountain!" Haha.

It seems as time goes by, no one came to hear from these nobodies, they want Obama.

Bill Richardson is playing attack dog, has a good portion of the crowd. Did he just mention the NRA? Richardson, if you don't know, has good standing with the NRA. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have to be perhaps the most gun control friendly ticket in recent time. Huh?

What's with all the musicians? This Live Earth or something?

Oh no, I spoke too soon. Al Gore. HA! Crowd looks like it woke up. For awhile at least, he is getting boring. Environment, Environment, Environment. Typical Gore. Meh speech.

Obama delivered. He made the otherwise weak convention look rememberable and noteworthy. One major problem this year’s convention had was it didn't have a voice. Luckily, for them, Obama filled that emptiness and gave it a voice. It was the best speech of the convention.

Ignoring the good speech, the set I still can't get over. It was too much and it showed. With the fireworks afterwards (he didn't rise out of the ground like previously rumored), it seemed like the DNC was trying to fill Obama's lack of experience with an exaggerated performance. The columns in the background weren’t as bad as previously thought, but still marked the sign of absurdity. Were they trying to compete with Chinese Olympics? Otherwise, bravo Obama. Enjoy your poll bounce.

As citizens, we elect the person we feel is able to govern best. This isn’t the American Idol and we shouldn’t vote like it is. I am still standing by McCain.

RNC Convention 2008: Next Week.

Why Huck Why?

E. M. Zanotti of American Princess sounds off on Mike Huckabee.

Its been months since I’ve even talked about him, and I’ve enjoyed the brief respite. Believe me, there’s nothing I like better than watching Mike Huckabee descend into obscurity. Okay, maybe I like watching just about anything with Johnny Depp better, but this is a close second, and to tell the truth, more personally satisfying. Which is why its even more disappointing to me that, like a bad penny, Huckabee has suddenly thrust himself back into the limelight under the guise of competing for the Vice Presidential nod. If McCain’ is wise, he’ll bow to the moderates who have begrudgingly abandoned their Bob Barr liberty mustaches (thankfully), and picked up the banner, albeit temporarily, for John McCain, he’ll ignore Mike and let him get back to the business of giving Chuck Norris something to talk about. So far, McCain seems to be on board with that idea: the latest rumors have him picking Mitt Romney.

You know, it's kind of weird. During the primaries, I really thought Huckabee was the most charismatic candidate (outperforming even Obama). He had that good natured humor and optimistic outlook that it was hard not to like him. Of course I disagreed with him on about everything (I mean everything), yet I could still say at the end of the day he was a good person.

I'm not sure anymore.

Mike Huckabee: Go back to Hope.

McCain Overusing POW Story?

There has been some buzz going around that John McCain uses his experience as a POW too often, to the point where, it can soon be mocked like that of Rudy with 9/11.

Can a person who showed unfathomable heroism in a dark period of war invoke that heroism too often?

It's a complicated thing, writing about Sen. John McCain's years as a Vietnam POW, and how he's cited those years in the campaign.

A meme has developed among some bloggers and commentators that McCain is citing those grisly five and a half years too often.

Among them one-time McCain admirer Andrew Sullivan, who sees it cropping up in McCain comments so often it's becoming even mockable, despite how horrific it was, in the same way Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., felt able to mock former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's invocation of September 11.

Does McCain overuse his POW experience? The answer is no. Definitely not to the levels Rudy used 9/11. Whether or not it was fair to Rudy, he did mention the event a lot, to the point where it was mockable. Every debate, every interview, every Rudy discussion involved the events of 9/11 to some degree. The Rudy jest worked.

The way McCain uses his POW experience differs, he usually uses it as a defense mechanism, when someone is questioning him (e.g. his integrity). It's not the same thing and those who are thinking of turning it into a joke better be prepared for backlash, because they are going to get it. I seriously doubt it will play in the media nor even the entertainment industry. You can say it's unfair for McCain to use it as a defense all of the time, yet to mock it (such as in the way it was done to Rudy), would be incomprehensible. Don't even try it.

The POW card?

The Russian Government Votes

Why bother to even vote? We already knew the outcome.

Why Can't People Take Obama Seriously?

I wonder why. Really, I do.

Barack Obama has jumped the shark.

Three Story Sunday

Two parts Biden, one part Obama.

First, from Neo-neocon.

My title is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, of course. But it did occur to me, watching clips of Joe Biden late last night, that Obama’s new running mate is the closest thing to John McCain that Obama could have found in the Democratic Party. After all, he’s been in the Senate forever, is strongest on foreign policy, feisty, sports sparse white hair (and skip the joshing about the plugs; I think the transplant looks pretty darn good at this point, although it went through some strange transitional phases over the years), and is not exactly a spring chicken.

Interesting.


Second, from E. M. Zanotti.

It took me most of the day to recover from the intense, white hot anger I felt at being woken up at three in the freaking morning by a text message to my Blackberry telling me that Joe Biden was about to become Obama’s running mate. Not only did I know this hours beforehand, since cameras were staked out outside of his house and managed to catch a Secret Service detail landing on his front porch just hours before, but if someone was going to wake me up that early, I would hope it would be for something good, like George Clooney…not Joe “Dunkin’ Donuts” Biden.

Greatest title ever.


Third, from William Kristol.

This week, the least qualified man to receive a major party nomination for the presidency of the United States in modern times will be anointed by his party. He could well win the general election.

Republicans have held the presidency for the last eight years. On five occasions since the FDR-Truman administration, voters have had a chance to change parties after a two-term presidency. Four of those times (1960, 1968, 1976, 2000), they have done so. The fifth occasion was 1988, when Republicans held the White House after Reagan's two terms. But Reagan's approval rating was then close to 60 percent; George W. Bush's is around 30 percent.

Good point.

Just another Sunday.

What Does Everyone Think of Biden?

Pajamas Media has the following list:

La Shawn Barber: “Joe Biden: The ‘Articulate’ and ‘Clean’ Man’s Choice”

Hugh Hewitt: “McCain counters with … Romney, of course.”

Mother Jones: “By tapping Biden, Obama does little to reinforce his core themes of change and hope. He does not amplify his Washington-is-broken and postpartisan messages.”

Feministe: “I’m not devastated but not thrilled either. There’s a lot of really troubling things in there…”

Andrew Sullivan: “Not an inspired choice, in my book. But smart and solid — and adult.”

Powerline: “Happiness is a thing called Joe”

The New Republic: “The fighting in Georgia underscored the need to bring some foreign policy experience to the ticket. No one does that better than Biden.”

For more, click here.

Even though I think Obama shouldn't have picked him, Joe Biden is a hell of a lot better than John Kerry's VP choice in 2004.

McCain's VP: The Positives and the Negatives

I did this for Obama, now it's time for McCain. Of course the Obama camp didn't listen to me, because they picked the more risky (in my eyes) choice, Sen. Joesph Biden. I hope that the McCain camp will be smart and pick someone who will deliver. But you never know.

Here is a list of positives and negatives of a certain few who are named as possible running mates with McCain.

Sen. Joesph Lieberman.
Positives: A lifelong Democrat turned Independent, he would bring those "Reagan Democrats" across the aisle again to vote for McCain. He also has a little edge in the independent market, and would improve McCain's message of "Bi-partisanship."

Negatives: He shares only security with McCain, and differs with him and the Republican base on about everything (with the small exception with the environment, which he shares with McCain). The pro-choice aspect really hurts an already hesitant social conservative view of the McCain campaign.

Lieberman gets an X.


Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Positives: Being the mayor of the largest city in the United States shows a lot of executive experience. He turned the city around (for better or worse depending on the person) and has plenty of domestic credentials. For his more center-left views, he is considered more attractive to independents. Can hold his own in a debate and has a certain household name quality to him (that every American knows already).

Negatives: Lifestyle could be torn apart (which would emphasize McCain's even more) and that doesn't look good. In more right leaning circles he is considered "too liberal" and would give an already non-ecstatic base heartburn. Social conservatives will revolt for his views on gay rights and abortion.

Rudy gets an X.


Former Gov. Mitt Romney.
Positives: He knows the economy, and he knows it well. This gives McCain a plus for past remarks hinting at his own lackluster qualifications when it comes to the economy. Romney is a former Governor of Massachusetts, he has executive experience. He can also play up the "Bi-partisanship" theme with him governing a mostly blue state. The Republican base loves him and will help with the worry warts. Could possibly deliver Michigan, which would really help McCain.

Negatives: One of the biggest problems with a Romney pick is unfortunately religious bigotry (by the American public). Even though Romney is a social conservative, it could hurt McCain with some religious segments of the population. He could also give to the appearance that McCain is out of touch, with Romney being rich. The Obama campaign with the pick of Biden is going to play the "working class" angle and will depict the McCain/Romney union as the rich man's ticket. Romney has also flipped on a number of positions, which the Democrats can use in ads.

It could be Romney.


Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Positives: Would add experience to a McCain ticket (the ticket could be called the "experience ticket"). He really is the safest choice McCain can make (like Bayh was to Obama). He is Governor of Minnesota, a blue state that is looking like it might turn (though there is a greater possibility that he could help in Wisconsin more than Minnesota), and is from the Mid-West, which is going to be big in this election cycle. He was in the Minnesota House of Representatives for 10 years (which Obama considers experience) and was majority leader from 1999-2002. In 2002, he was elected Governor and has since then been a decent one. He is part of the new wave of Republicans and coined the phrase "Sam's Club Republican." He has also been very loyal to McCain throughout his campaign, even when it looked dead.

Negatives: Relativity unknown and doesn't garner much excitement to the base and/or the general public. Might give some of the base pause. Most likely will not deliver Minnesota.

Pawlenty is a safe pick.


Gov. Sarah Palin.
Positives: A fresh face onto the scene, she is considered a reformer like McCain. She is quick on her feet and can handle her own when being questioned. With the dissatisfaction of some Clinton supporters with Obama, putting her on the ticket could see a shift in female support for McCain.

Negatives: Doesn't have a lot of experience, which could take away a talking point from McCain (though to be honest, she still has more experience than Obama, defiantly in terms of executive experience). She differs with McCain on ANWR, which could produce some awkward statements on her behalf (unless McCain flips on ANWR) when it comes to energy policy. She is from a state that is considered safe for Republicans. She has a mini-scandal going on, which wouldn't hurt that much, yet with Republican Sen. Ted Stevens representing the state, there will be no passes by the media. Might give the base pause on some positions.

Palin is a possibility, though most likely an X.


Former Gov. Tom Ridge.
Positives: Could deliver Pennsylvania and has plenty of experience. Friend of McCain.

Negatives: Pro-choice, so obviously there is a social conservative revolt you got to worry about. Director of Homeland Security position was under a Bush administration and some independents don't have fond memories of him giving some odd suggestions (e.g. Color coded system, Duct taping yourself in your home with plastic, prepare for doom, etc.).

Ridge gets an X.


That is the list. Most likely the pick will be Romney or Pawlenty. They have more experience and strategic value than the others. If McCain wants to be really safe, he should pick Pawlenty. If he is really worried about the economy (i.e. his performance in talking about it), he should pick Romney.

McCain: The countdown begins.

Obama/Biden, The Ticket is Official

By official, I mean the United States Secret Service is on it's way to Biden's place. If that doesn't tell you something, then I don't know what does. So we are looking at an Obama/Biden ticket.

I have already expressed my view on Biden and why Obama should have stayed clear from him.

Biden is a hothead. He will embarrass Obama. X

I gave him an X because of what I said above. He gets fired up and makes embarrassingly offensive statements (which Obama will of course need to apologize for or reap media frenzies). Yet what does this mean, why Biden? What does he bring?

The selection of Biden reveals two important things:
1. Obama doesn't have the gut to attack McCain. Joesph Biden will act as Spiro Agnew was to Nixon, an attack dog that will be relentless. Biden is good on his toes when attacking, and can even come up with some witty one-liners.*

2. Obama has serious problems with the working class vote. Biden's background and persona fits that mold, which will ease the blue collar voters into voting for Obama.

What does Biden bring to the table? A ton of experience and plenty of foreign policy credentials. He knows the ropes of Washington and is as much as a insider as you can get when it comes to politics.

Expect a fiery of attacks coming out of the Obama campaign in the coming weeks, the attack dog has arrived.

Not Bayh (the safe choice which made more sense).

Update 1: Will they muzzle him? How long do they wait on the attack dog?

Update 2: That was fast! McCain already has an ad up.


Update 3: * Told ya.

Yeah Yeah Yeah Thursday

Besides waiting for Obama to announce his VP (which most likely will be tomorrow or Saturday), I've been listening to the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. One of those unique bands where every song they release is great.

"Turn Into"


"Gold Lion"


New CD coming out next year. Pure awesome.

The Great Divide: Liberal Democracies and Autocratic States

Awhile back John McCain (among others) suggested that the time has come for nations that represent liberal principles to form together and join a League of Democracies. It was to complement but not limit the U.N., to act where it fails. Critics of the League of Democracies suggested this would start a new cold war, an alignment among autocratic nations against those who support and/or have relations with the United States and the Western world. This belief was that these nations would only go in this direction as a result of the "League", such as a reaction, rather than something that was organic. Yet it is organic and the fact of the matter is autocratic nations have already begun the march of alignment. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela for awhile now has been forming ties across the globe with nations such as Belarus and Iran (who all share a disdain for progression and liberal democratic principles). Autocratic nations are already forming an "other" international order and we should stop pretending it is a reaction to everything we do.

Today is further evidence of this order that is forming, with Syria and Russia now heading towards a closer relationship.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad headed to Moscow today to discuss an expansion of his pariah state’s military cooperation with Russia.

The trip is raising fears that the new Cold War that has erupted in the Caucasus will spill over into the Middle East, long a battleground between East and West, and crush tentative hopes for peace.

"Of course military and technical cooperation is the main issue. Weapons purchases are very important," said Mr Assad. "I think we should speed it up. Moreover, the West and Israel continue to put pressure on Russia."

Israel, like its main sponsor America, has developed close military ties with Georgia in recent years, with defence contractors supplying training and equipment to the small, US-backed state.

Of course, those who are in the "reaction to" crowd will brush it off as our fault.

The League of Tyranny.

Pakistan: Musharraf No More

Well, it's official, Pervez Musharraf has resigned.

The immediate reaction in Pakistan’s corridors of power and streets to the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf was one of optimism and opportunity.

“His resignation will bring stability hopefully,” said Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi. He noted that the stock market, which had suffered in recent sessions, had reacted positively.

Even though he was effectively out of power since the beginning of this year, the official status of it is still good to see. Since 1999, Musharraf ruled Pakistan trying hard to become one of those "benevolent dictator" types we so often hear about. Though not as harsh as other dictators, he still was for all intents and purposes, a dictator.

With the presence of such a figure, it strips the populace of say and interaction in their government. They aren't free if there is still an unelected leader watching over them. However, the day has finally come, and Pakistan begins the official shift to a developing democracy. Though obviously we (i.e. the United States) will have a rocky relationship with this government from now on, I'd rather have it be a free Pakistan than an unfree Pakistan.

Pakistan: Now Musharraf is gone, it's time to get rid of that rapid corruption.

Three Story Sunday

What's next for Pakistan?

THE story of Pervez Musharraf’s rise and fall has been a long and rather sad one. A skilful and decent professional soldier, he took power in 1999 amid chaos caused by corrupt and incompetent politicians, came to like the stuff and clung on to it far too long. A good friend to the West in the fight against al-Qaeda, he became a liability as he stalled on the promised return to democracy and his countrymen turned against him. Now the story seems to be nearing its end.

The end of Musharraf.


Hezbollah violating U.N. agreement?

An independent monitoring group in Lebanon has disputed a claim made by the commander of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) last week that Hizbullah has honored Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the Second Lebanon War, and called the UN forces "hostages of Hizbullah."

Toni Nissi, the general coordinator of the international-Lebanese Committee for UN Security Council Resolution 1559, told reporters on Saturday that all parties involved - particularly Hizbullah - were violating Resolution 1701.

No surprise here.


United States-Polish security deal rattled by threats from Russia.

MOSCOW -- A top Russian general on Friday said Poland's deal with the United States to set up parts of a missile defence shield on Polish territory lays it open to a possible military strike, a Russian news agency reported.

Col-General Anatoliy Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the general staff, told Interfax that Russian military doctrine would allow for a possible nuclear strike.

Poland agreed on Thursday to host elements of a U.S. global anti-missile system after Washington agreed to boost Poland's own military air defences.

Yeah, poor innocent Russia. I'm sure this is of course the U.S. fault, right? Russia is playing bully, and we get blamed.

Just another Sunday.

RealClearWorld: My Life Just Got Better

Check out RealClearWorld. More on the site below.

RealClearWorld, a sister site of RealClearPolitics, RealClearMarkets and RealClearSports, is a catch-all source for global news and commentary. Everyday the RealClearWorld team finds and selects the best international news, opinions and analyses from English-language publications in over 50 countries and all six continents.

In addition to providing links to the world's best commentary and analysis on the biggest global news, RealClearWorld also maintains many other tools for the international news junkie, including the best editorials around the world, a Research and Analysis collection featuring the latest published papers on global politics, a Video Log of each day's most engaging news events, and the RCW blog.

My new favorite site.

Russia: Making Sense of It All

Have we really entered a new era in international politics? In short, yes. With the Soviet Union (the big bad giant everyone loved to hate) gone and no more, other political forces emerged. Some of these forces were once just a blimp on the map during the cold war era, others like Russia, a reemerging power. They all have become big players in their respected regions (i.e. Russia and bordering countries, Iran in the Middle East, Venezuela in Latin America). Some came in religious clothing, like that in Iran, others, more neo-fascist, like what we are seeing today in Russia. Autocratic governments never played by the rules and we should not expect them to, U.N. to them is just a buffer.

In the case of Russia, make no mistake, this reemerging power is here to stay. This is not the Soviet Union; there is not an ideology that wraps together its intent. What Russia goes after is pure national interest, where growth means pushing everybody else out of line to get ahead. So it should come to no surprise, that a developing democracy like Georgia, would get targeted and invaded. The word sovereignty to autocratic governments is just a code word for their own country and is meaningless when applied in counter to their interests. Georgia, who since the Rose Revolution has shifted to a more Western friendly style of governance, was punished for exactly this reason. The line they crossed was Russian national interest, which puts emphasis on Greater Russia. This Georgia escapade was a test and the West for the most part ate out of Putin’s hand.

So what are we to make of all this? Gary Kasparov, member of Other Russia and a political dissident in Russia offers his view in The Wall Street Journal today.

Russia's invasion of Georgia reminded me of a conversation I had three years ago in Moscow with a high-ranking European Union official. Russia was much freer then, but President Vladimir Putin's onslaught against democratic rights was already underway.

"What would it take," I asked, "for Europe to stop treating Putin like a democrat? If all opposition parties are banned? Or what if they started shooting people in the street?" The official shrugged and replied that even in such cases, there would be little the EU could do. He added: "Staying engaged will always be the best hope for the people of both Europe and Russia."

The citizens of Georgia would likely disagree. Russia's invasion was the direct result of nearly a decade of Western helplessness and delusion. Inexperienced and cautious in the international arena at the start of his reign in 2000, Mr. Putin soon learned he could get away with anything without repercussions from the EU or America.

The wait is over.

The second article comes from Henry Jackson Society's Marko Attila Hoare, who views Russia as a ticking bomb no one wants to defuse or let alone touch.

Now, for the first time since World War II, the democratic West is faced by a brutal, neo-fascist, expansionist regime in command of an imperial state whose military might is comparable to that of Hitler’s Third Reich. Putin is an aggressive despot who came to power determined to reverse the defeat and perceived humiliation of Russia in the Cold War, much as Hitler aimed to reverse Germany’s humiliation in World War I (Putin even employed a stunt to cement his power that was highly reminiscent of the 1933 Reichstag fire - the stage-managed ‘terrorist’ bombing of Russian cities by his security services, that could be conveniently blamed on the Chechens). He then used weapons of mass destruction against his own Chechen civilians, destroying the European city of Grozny. He has waged campaigns of persecution against Jewish magnates (’oligarchs’) and Caucasian ethnic minorities. He has established a fascist-style youth movement (’Nashi‘). He has suppressed the free Russian media, murdered independent journalists and effectively abolished Russian democracy.

Will we be too late?

I had my doubts in the beginning of the South Ossetia affair as who was in fault. It is clear now, staring me in the face the entire time, that Russia is indeed the perpetrator and aggressor here. Russia is to blame.

Russia: Neo-Fascism in the 21st Century.

Mugabe: Still Leader, Still Trouble

The dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, is still up to the same old tricks.

Zimbabwean officials have blocked Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) leader Morgan Tsvangirai and other top party officials from leaving the country to attend this weekend's summit of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

In a statement issued on Thursday, the MDC said that government intelligence agents had seized the passports of Tsvangirai, MDC secretary-general Tendai Biti and the party's secretary for international relations, Professor Eliphas Mukonoweshuro. The three leaders were detained briefly at Harare International Airport before their passports were taken and they were prevented from boarding their aircraft.

The MDC said the government's action showed "that the regime is not sincere on the dialogue process."

Looks like that whole "power sharing with Tsvangirai" solution was a big hoax, and Mugabe has no intention of stepping down. Not at all surprising, just really saddening.

Zimbabwe date of freedom: ?

Obama's VP: Who's Left and Who He Should Pick

TIME magazine's the Swampland has a list of possible choices (and former choices):

Bayh
Kaine
Biden
Dodd
Richardson
Clark
Bloomberg
Reed
Chet Edwards

So who should Obama pick? Here is my take on the remaining few:

Kaine has proven to be a laughable surrogate. X

Dodd has connections to a Countrywide scandal. X

Richardson would make a much better Secretary of State than a Vice President. X

Reed has already said he doesn't want it. X

Chet Edwards is too unknown and though a longtime member of the House, doesn't really add to a Obama ticket. X

Biden is a hothead. He will embarrass Obama. X

That leaves three: Bayh, Clark, and Bloomberg.

Bayh gives Obama a more centrist edge, with Bayh being a former DLC Chairman and kind of a hawk on foreign policy. Though the guy is hardly telegenic, he will deliver where Obama can't. He will help form the "Mid-west ticket." The Mid-west is where the action is going to be this election and Obama needs to win big there. It's a smart move.

Clark obviously gives a national security edge to Obama. Though he has caused problems in the past as a surrogate, the more the media pushes "Gen. Clark" the more Americans will accept a Obama/Clark ticket. X*

Bloomberg will bring in the independents, 'nough said.

Obama/Bayh, Obama/Clark, Obama/Bloomberg. These are winning tickets.

If it was up to me (since I want Obama to lose), It'd be Obama/Kucinich.

Update: *Wes Clark will not be attending the convention. Looks like there is no other option than to pick Bayh. Unless Obama is ready to surprise us with a Gore, who knows.

Shocker: Russia Violates Truce

Who didn't see this coming? Meanwhile, Bush is stepping up and is planning to provide aid to Georgia.

Russian troops and paramilitaries rolled into the strategic Georgian city of Gori on Wednesday, apparently violating a truce designed to end the conflict that has uprooted tens of thousands and scarred the Georgian landscape.

In Washington, President Bush said the United States planned a massive humanitarian effort involving American ships and aircraft, including a C-17 military cargo plane loaded with supplies that landed on Wednesday.

Bush said he was sending in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to deal with the crisis, and she called on Russia to halt military operations in Georgia. "I have heard the Russian president say that his military operations are over. I am saying it is time for the Russian president to be true to his word," Rice said.

When will Russia stop?

When.

A Halt to the Russian-Georgian War?

We'll see if Medvedev (or Putin for that matter) is true to his word.

Some other articles worth checking out on the war, The New Centrist, Peace Like a River, Oliver Kamm, Foreign Policy Passport, Neo-neocon, and World Politics Review.

The Caucasus fire.

Update 1: Russia continues to bomb? We'll see how this plays out.

Update 2: Now most of it's over, punishment for Russia?

Elsewhere in the World: Bolivia

The recall referendum for Bolivian President Evo Morales was a success, moving the country closer to the likes of Venezuela.

President Evo Morales seemed to have secured an easy victory in a recall referendum on Sunday, giving him a fresh mandate to advance efforts to redistribute petroleum royalties and private farmlands among the country’s impoverished indigenous majority.

Reports on national television, citing preliminary vote counts, said that Mr. Morales, a former coca farmer whose pro-indigenous policies and alliance with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela have irritated the Bush administration, had won the referendum with 63.5 percent supporting his administration.

There was some good news to come out of this election, with a few eastern Bolivian governors making some noise.

Sunday's recall referendum, which gave Morales 63 percent of the vote according to unofficial results, did nothing to break the political crisis pitting the leftwing president against conservative governors seeking autonomy for their gas-rich states, analysts said.

Those governors, in the lowlying eastern states of Santa Cruz, Tarija, Pando and Beni, also emerged from the referendum with strong votes bolstering their ambitions.

The only way to end the stalemate now was for Morales's government to start negotiating with the governors, the analysts said.

In his post-referendum victory speech late Sunday, Morales made a first step towards offering an olive branch by congratulating his foes on their wins, and calling on them to work with him.

Though it seems negotiation won't stop further nationalization by Morales, who now has a reassurance by the populace that it's the right decision to make.

Oh Bolivia.

Three Story Sunday

The first article is by Jazz Shaw from The Moderate Voice, who analyzes the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

As we enter the second day of hostilities between Russia and Georgia, I see that the two major party candidates have already weighed in on the subject. (Has anyone even bothered asking the President, I wonder?) In a previous column, I posed the question, “do we even have a dog in this fight?” Some readers were quick in displaying the intellectual honesty to eschew any dithering over American parental obligations to the nascent Georgian democracy and the fragile Rose Revolution, pointing out the threat which exists to the strategic Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which brings Caspian oil to the west. (If nothing else, this crisis should remind us yet again of how our dependence on foreign oil supplies - controlled by countries who rarely have our best interests in mind - impacts each and every move we make on both domestic and international fronts.) Even the Washington Post decided to opine that Russia must be “stopped.”

Though I agree that Russia is no one to play around with at this point in time, we should at least help Georgia out in some way. No? Would that set off a chain reaction, reboot a new type of cold war (though much more decentralized on the other side, since this cold war would probably include various autocratic states, not a single entity like the U.S.S.R) and all around be a disastrous option?


The second article is by the Economist on the same subject.

GEORGIAN soldiers, tanks and fighter-planes struck Tskhinvali, the capital of the breakaway (Russian-backed) region of South Ossetia, on Friday August 8th. Parts of the city were reported to be burning as Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, declared that his forces had “freed” much of the area from separatist control.

The immediate cause of the fighting is unclear as claim and counterclaim abound. But what is clear is that a conflict which has been simmering for years, has at last erupted. What happens next will depend almost entirely on Russia’s response: 150 Russian tanks were reported to be entering South Ossetia on Friday. Georgia's government says that Russian planes have dropped bombs outside of South Ossetia including on the edge of Tblisi, the Georgian capital. Alexander Lomaia, the secretary of Georgia's National Security Council, told The Economist on Friday that “this is an open military aggression and we are now at the state of undeclared war with Russia. What else could you call it?”. He also said that Georgia had announced a ceasefire in South Ossetia from 3pm on Friday.

A hectic and complex situation.


The third article is about South America and the leftward shift in recent years, and what it means for democracy.

In a high-stakes vote, Bolivians will decide Sunday whether populist President Evo Morales gets to keep his job.

It's the latest in a string of popular votes called for by Latin America's new crop of leftist leaders whose reforms have brought a sense of inclusion to the poor and, some say, strengthened democracy. But others say it reverses the region's democratic gains. By bringing votes directly to the people, leaders are bypassing checks and balances and centralizing power in their own hands.

When autocrats get more and more centralized power, there will come a point in time when they won't need to ask the masses anymore, they'll take it.

Just another Sunday.

Update 1: Russia rejects ceasefire plea by Georgia? Really.


Update 2: Russia ready to negotiate?

Update 3: Russia going for the throat.

Who is to Blame? Russia, Georgia, Both?

Here is an article by Edward Lucas.

In short, it looks more and more as though Georgia has fallen in to its enemies' trap. The script went like this: first mount unbearable provocations, then wait for a response, and finally reply with overwhelming military force and diplomatic humiliation. The idea that Georgia sought this war is nonsense. Recovering control of South Ossetia from its Russian-backed rulers has been a top priority for the Georgian authorities for years. But nobody thought it would come by military means. The Georgian strategy had been to use soft power, underlining its prosperity and the corruption-

busting successes of Mr Saakashvili's rule. That contrasted sharply with the isolation and cronyism of South Ossetia, which survives only on smuggling and Russian subsidies.

Clearly Lucas feels Georgia is defiantly not to blame.


Here is an interesting article posted on the Other Russia website (Other Russia is an opposition party to Putin's United Russia), which takes the stance that Georgia was simply mimicking Russian geopolitical tactics and takes a critical stance towards both parties.

The Georgians also talk about restoring Constitutional order. It was precisely this kind of restoration that Mikhail Saakashvili was preparing for since his first day of coming to power – because he desperately wants to resemble Vladimir Putin. And if anyone can blame the Georgian president for this, it’s his Western friends. But we of the former Soviet Union know: the society here adores the victor with his bloody saber bared. Experienced diplomats, devoting their lives to the negotiation process are out of favor here.

Interesting, though I have a feeling it's a tad exaggerated. Russian leadership for years has had a goal of attaining a "greater Russia" type rule along its borders, with intimidation and outright political subversion (e.g. Ukraine). Georgia? Not so much.

So the question is, who to blame? I know I want to paint Russia as being an aggressor here, though I also don’t want to gloss over anything the Georgian side may have done. Yet again, Russia is an emerging autocratic state and Georgia a developing democracy, should the difference matter? I don’t know.

Make your own conclusions.

Update 1: Another Reuters segment.


Update 2:
Marko Attila Hoare of the Greater Surbiton gives his thoughts on the conflict. He rightfully exposes the menacing involvement of Russia as of late in the region, how these enclaves are not like Kosovo and also states why the West should support Georgia.

Almost exactly thirteen years after Croatia, with its ‘Operation Storm’, successfully liberated itself from Serbian imperialist occupation, Georgia has attempted an ‘Operation Storm’ of its own. Yet while Croatia was fortunate enough to be faced by a relatively weak oppressor, little Georgia must face the might of the world’s territorially largest country, and one of the world’s most powerful military machines. Although I have recently written here that military means are not a feasible way of reversing the Russian Anschluss with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and though I fear Tbilisi has been provoked into behaving rashly and entering a battle it cannot win, yet my solidarity is entirely with Georgia, her government and her people as they fight for their freedom.

Hoare seems to me to have the best analysis of the situation so far.

More on South Ossetia War

CNN has more on the conflict:

Bombs rocked Tbilisi early Saturday morning as the fight between Georgia and Russia over a breakaway region intensified and moved into the Georgian capital.

Government buildings, including the Parliament, were evacuated when the bombs fell.

Heavy casualties have reported on both sides since Russian forces moved Friday into South Ossetia, a pro-Russian autonomous region of Georgia.

Russian bombers were targeting Georgia's economic infrastructure, National Security Council secretary Alexander Lomaia said, including the country's largest Black Sea port, Poti, and the main road connecting the southern part of Georgia with the east and the airport.

Georgian television reported that the port had been destroyed.

Georgia, a former Soviet state, sent troops into South Ossetia on Thursday, aiming to crack down on the separatists, who want independence or unification with North Ossetia, which is in Russia. Russia responded Friday, sending troops into the Georgian province where it had peacekeepers stationed.

CNN International also interviewed the President of Georgia, where in a heated defense, rejected assertions that Georgia started the conflict.

Others beg to differ.

Russian markets are hit hard by the news.

Prolonged involvement in the South Ossetian conflict could put Russian assets at risk and could put downward pressure on the ruble, analysts said.

Which means this will hopefully be done sooner than later.

Christian Science Monitor also has an article covering the conflict.

The diplomats may still be talking of peace, but from the front line deep inside the pro-Moscow breakaway republic of South Ossetia, a long-feared war between Russia and NATO-leaning Georgia appears to be under way.

At stake are Russia's already strained relations with the West, which backs Georgia, as well as Georgian President Mikhael Saakashvili's hopes of leading his country into the NATO alliance within the next year. An extended conflict might also hit global energy prices, if a crucial pipeline that carries Caspian oil and gas through Georgia to Western markets should be threatened.

Which actor is to blame? Russia, Georgia, both?

Also, look at this article from a few months ago.

The United States called on Russia on Friday to repeal instructions to intensify its contacts with two breakaway regions in Georgia.

"We urge Russia to live up to its statements of support for the principles of Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity and to repeal the April 16 instructions," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Russia's Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that President Vladimir Putin has ordered the government to increase cooperation with authorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, drawing an angry response from the Georgian government, which accused Moscow of seeking to annex the two regions.

May the war end and the causalities be low.

For the previous post, click here.

Georgia, Russia and South Ossetia

Foreign Policy Passport has the following:

So it's war.

Reuters is reporting that Russia has bombed a Georgian airbase near Tblisi, the capital, in retaliation for yesterday's massive military incursion into South Ossetia. Russia has also sent troops into the breakaway region. A senior Georgian military official told the agency, "They have declared war against us."

For more information, go here.

Going to get worse before it gets better?

Update: More from Foreign Policy Passport:

The situation in Georgia is evolving rapidly. Here are some of the latest developments:

* Local authorities are claiming that nearly 1,000 civilians were killed in this morning's military assault. A spokesman for Russia's peacekeeping force in the region says that 10 Russian soldiers have been killed and thirty wounded.
* Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili says that 30 Georgians have been killed by Russian bombing. He also claims that Georgian troops have taken control of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital. According to news agencies, fighting between Georgian and Russian forces is ongoing.
* "War has started," says Vladimir Putin. Georgia agrees.
* Georgia will be withdrawing 1,000 troops from Iraq to participate in the fighting.
* Envoys from the EU, United States, and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have been dispatched to negotiate a truce.
* Volunteers fighters from North Ossetia -- officially part of Russia -- are pouring in to help the rebels.
* The Red Cross has called for the opening of a "humanitarian corridor" to allow civilians to evacuate.

I sure hope that civilian death count of 1,000 isn't as high as reported. Just horrible.

The Olympics: Why the Outrage?

Now I know I've said in the past it is hard for me to boycott something I don't really watch to begin with, yet others I know do, and if you are able to simply say no to the Olympics symbolically, then hey, do it. China, the host country, is responsible for funding some of the worst dictatorships around the world. It's time they listened. Below are some organizations and sites you should visit.

There is a site called Darfur Olympics that is offering an alternative opening for the Olympics. Below is a video and text describing the events that will coincide with the Olympics.

Remember the people of Darfur as the rest of the world celebrates international cooperation and China as the Olympic host.
PARTICIPATE IN THE DARFUR OLYMPICS
1. Watch the Alternative Opening Ceremony
August 8 at 8:08 am EST in the US / August 8 at 8:08 pm in Beijing

REM, Talib Kweli, Bette Midler and others have donated songs to our "Alternative Opening Ceremony."
2. Watch the Darfur Olympics with Mia Farrow
August 9 to 16, 2008 – new content everyday at noon EST in the US

Mia Farrow is webcasting a daily report from a Darfurian refugee camp. There will also be information about the Darfur crisis – and opportunities to take a daily action.

Sign up below, and we’ll deliver each day’s broadcast and action opportunity to your inbox.
China has a unique position of influence with the regime in Khartoum. Beijing buys the bulk of Sudan’s oil; sells weapons to the regime, which have been used to kill people in Darfur; and has protected Khartoum at the Security Council. Click here to learn more.

For more information, go to the Darfur Olympics website.


Another site I would like to pass along is the U.S. Campaign for Burma, which has been great in providing much needed attention to the situation in Burma. Below is a video about the organization and the events that unfolded on 8/8/88, when many stood up to the junta that controls the country. The date happens to be the same day of the opening ceremony.



For more information on the U.S. Campaign for Burma, go here.
For even more information go here.


Freedom House has also released "Five Things You Should Know about the Beijing Olympics" which can be accessed here.

Five Things You Should Know about the Beijing Olympics

1. China’s commitment to improve human rights for the Olympics was not significant and has not been enforced.
2. Repression has increased, not decreased, in the lead up to the Olympics.
3. The Olympics will not be covered freely by foreign or domestic media.
4. China’s athletics system still bears the hallmarks of a totalitarian system.
5. The Olympic Games have political implications and are not just a sporting event.

For more Freedom House information on China and the Olympics, click here.

These organizations seem worth checking out even if you're going to watch the Olympics. Hopefully those who decide on future Olympics sites will consider the host countries human rights record and weigh whether or not it's worth it. The Chinese government has shown its colors by its support of ruthless and tyrannical regimes around the world (though to be fair, what do you expect from a country that is itself a authoritarian regime).

For past posts on China and the Olympics, click here.

For the people of Darfur, Burma, Tibet, Zimbabwe, and others who won't be able to celebrate this year's opening of the Olympics.

Uncommon Knowledge: Hitchens/Hansen on WWII and Pat Buchanan

Enjoy.

Click here for location of the video.
Date made: Jul 9th, 2008