Kerry

I know this is old news but I need to catch up.

Why did John Kerry win the Democratic nomination?
Let's get this clear because this is important to my thinking on the election. John Kerry did NOT win because of Howard Dean's screaming fest. The polls were already trending for Kerry and he won the Iowa caucus BEFORE the Dean scream fest. Essentially the establishment chose Kerry because he was the safe candidate. He had the intersection of all the right things to be the Anti-Bush. He had a war service/hero record (sure we see weaknesses to it, but he was as John McCain as the Democrats could find). He had a moderate view on the war (while Democrate hated this they knew the middle of the road voter would never accept Dean's view on the war). He has a long record of public service (John Edwards is just an infant). And finally he had no embarassing failures (Gephardt while loved, has yet to prove he can win anything big). Kerry was the logical choice of big Democrat money and organization. The party bosses may no longer make decisions at party conventions but do not fool yourself into thinking that they are not involved in the primaries in a definitive way. Kerry was the best Anti-Bush. And here comes the heretical comment by me: Kerry was clever enough to market himself as just that. He has enough of a liberal record to keep the base happy, and meanwhile he can be "nuanced" for the moderate swing voter. One of the mistakes that people make is discounting the power of organization and planning in elections.

For instance, I contend that the election process is a natural selection process that ensures that the best manager rises to the general election in open contest years. Let's look at 2000. There were stories for it seems like two years about Bush having meetings with important Republicans. What was that all about? He ensured that by time the election got going he had all the best people behind him in terms of money and organization. He didn't beat McCain on issues or in the press, he beat him by good old organization and money. Now, I would also contend that 2000 was NOT an open year for the Democrats. Gore was defaulted into the nomination because he was the VP. He lost in November because he was not really as good a manager as Bush. Sure, he may have a higher IQ, but do you really want a Rocket Scientist with his pocket protector as CEO of any of the companies you have your retirement invested in? The point is simply that the ability to manage naturally gets rewarded in an open primary. This year the Democrats had an open primary and Dean was clever and smart, but not as well managed.

I Must Return

Okay, I have been away too long. I can't stand it anymore. I must return.

While the news is slow, there are things to talk about and I need to be heard. So here is a short list:

• Election
• Election
• Election
• and the straw that broke the camel's back? McGreevey resigns.

So I am reading this article about McGreevey. He sets up this news conference to make it sound so sad that he is gay and has to resign because it is a distraction to his ability to govern. What a saint. He is saving the people of New Jersey from distractions. But wait there is more. Turns out his team was under scrutiny for some illegal practices like hiring call girls to embarrass a political opponent. And wait. His resignation is not effective until November 15th so that a special election does not need to be held which might open the door to a Republican victory out of a political backlash--now who is worrying about the people of New Jersey first? And wait, it gets even better. He is doing this because his gay lover is blackmailing him with the threat of revealing the secret affair. Not out of duty, but to trump incredible demands! And wait, there is more. His wife, HIS SECOND wife, is standing next to him being supportive. He has a 2 year old daughter with his SECOND wife. How long have him and his SECOND wife been married? How did it so happen that he has a SECOND wife when he is gay? This man isn't gay or a saint. He is a just a liar and probably a sex addict.

Now do you understand why I need to come back? This is a crazy world and I just need to talk about it.

Thank You

I am finally getting accustomed to my school schedule and I decided to make a routine inspection of my website. This included the customary inspection of the hit report and email inbox. I am honored that there are still people hitting my site. If that is not a vote of something for my return I don't know what is.

That being said, I am still fairly busy. The biggest challenge is staying abreast of headlines. Actually, bigger than that is staying abreast of all the pundits. I haven't read a Krugman piece for a month--to be honest I don't miss the stuff.

I suppose I should comment on Arnold "The Harasser". I am willing to be equal opportunity on all of this behavior stuff. Before election, I want to forgive. After election, I have no patience. It was this logic that would have made me most likely to let Clinton slide back in 1992 (I was out of country and never had time to read the newspaper back then). George W got a slide for youthful indiscretion as well. Where it is easier to let W go is that he was not a "public" figure yet. Slick Willy and Arnold were. Granted Arnold was not elected, but so what? Just as I said on William Bennet and Kobe Bryant--a public figure should know better, and if not they should suffer. I make no excuses for bad behavior.

When it comes to damage control I advise the W, Bennet, and Arnold approach--admit, admit, admit, and then apologize. That being said the public must make a judgement about whether or not to believe an individual will change. In the case of Arnold I am not convinced.

Republicans should never have fallen for the glitz and should have backed McClintock from the beginning. It is all over, whether Davis or Bustamante, there will be a Democrat in the California Governors mansion at the end of the week.

*My disclaimer is that I may be full of it on my prediction because I have not looked at a poll in a month:)

More Slacking

I really hate to do this, but I think I am going to have to take a temporary hiatus. When I don't even have time to spend a few minutes last night listening to and analyzing the President's speech then I am sure that I don't have any chance of maintaining this site. I am sure I will return. This site will still be here as a resource, but it might be a while before I am back in the saddle of making timely commentary. To the few faithful I am trully sorry.

Slacking

I am sorry, I have been slacking. I realize that I need to update the readers of this site. I am about 2 weeks out of date and slipping fast.

The problem is that I have just begun an MBA program. Right On Everything is really more of a hobby--especially since I actually pay to have the privilege to post my opinions. I do hope that at some point Right On Everything might actually cause some editor somewhere to say: 'my goodness, we need this guy to write something for our Op-Ed section!' But reality forces me to realize that I might actually benefit more from serious attention to my studies. My attention to my studies not only cuts into my time to write, but makes it near to impossible to track the writing of others, not to mention read a newspaper. The hard thing is that I REALLY enjoy writing this stuff and I know that I do have a few people who actually keep coming to read my stuff.

What I have decided to do is to keep this site going, but in a scaled down fashion. Right On Everything will become a weekend site--Saturday to be specific. I will give that a try. Come here once a week and see what I have to say. Because of this my writing may turn out to be somewhat more philosophical in nature. Or I may make a general roundup of things that have transpired in the week. I may even finally put my thoughts on conservatism into writing. There is the possibility that as I become accustomed to being a student again I may actually post more frequently. I do have a laptop that I take to class and it is theoretically possible for me to write while ignoring professors. My real goal is to become accustomed to the school routine soon enough to make practical commentary on the Democratic primaries. I will keep you posted on my progress.

I apologize if this is disappointing. If you want to be reminded when I post, or you just want to complain please feel free to drop me a line at james at right on everything dot com.

Otherwise, see you back here on Monday!

Geoghan

How exactly does the New York Times figure that Geoghan being killed in prison equates to a need for better run prisons? Because it panders to the homosexual movement? Please don't tell me that Geoghan is to Gays what Mandela was to Black South Africans. Did we forget what Geoghan was in for? Hasn't it always been an unspoken expectation that child molesters tend to get wacked in prison? And isn't it sort of accepted that they deserve it? Okay, you may say he wasn't a molester, he was a pedophile. SO WHAT?!?!?! Why give it a scientific name? This guy was a monster. I don't care if you are gay or not, pedophilia is SICK! Which by the way reminds me of a question that I have never seen a good answer on. If a male adult has sex with a male kid, regardless of the fact that this is pedophilia, why is that Male not Gay? Last time I checked, Gay was male on male. Even if the adult male is married to a woman, the moment he has sex with a teenage boy, in my humble opinion, he is GAY! Not to take this on a further tangent, but therefore ALL scout masters who commit pedophilia ARE GAY. Sure it might be argued that the pedophilia came first, not the homosexuality. But don't tell me that pedophiles are not Gay. You might rightly argue that not all homosexuals are pedophiles--fine. But please don't tell me I am hateful for stating the obvious fact that pedophiles are Gay. I am in no way condoning the issue of pedophilia as an excuse for hating Gays. Next unanswered question. If Catholic priests are sworn to celibacy, where the heck is there any room for discussion about pedophilia? As far as I am concerned sex, straight or gay, violates celibacy requirements. This is the real story. When did the Catholic church go all soft on issues of sex?

Affirmative Diversity

I am beginning an MBA program. This week is orientation week. Before arriving I was not sure why we needed seven days of orientation on where the bathrooms were. It turns out that, amongst other things, we needed two days of orientation on why diversity is a GOOD thing. There is the argument that recruiters want to recruit at programs that provide diverse job candidates, there is the argument that recruiters want diverse managers who can understand how to target minority markets, and then there is the argument that since we (yeah the dumb white males) will be working with women and minority managers we need to practice how to not act like racist bigots! Weak. Really weak. This is a private university so I guess I have no place to criticize them since they are not doing it with tax dollars. But it still irritates me because what it shows is that the liberal group think on diversity has taken control of the marketplace. Even in an historically conservative institution, in a department known mostly for teaching how to calculate the bottom line, the liberal BS about diversity is there. And they have me sit there for two days on it because obviously they know that we won't buy it unless they brainwash us with it. It just makes me sick.

Homosexuality and Pedophilia

All I want to say is here is some interesting reading. The debate goes on.

And Now for the U.N.

I am watching things unfold after the bombing of the UN headquarters in Iraq. I am watching to see if this will wake up the UN just the way that the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia supposedly awakened the Saudis. It is the realization than terrorists or Baathists will not see the Saudis or the UN as neutral non-combatants. In fact terrorism is all about attacking the innocent so they never should have had an illusion, but they do. The UN is ignorant--or should I say that countries like France are ignorant. Do they think that the UN can continue to function with a weakened US? Do they think that the UN will still have the authority to enter countries and police truces if the US is not there to back the actions with the threat of force? The UN is not a neutral observer. The terrorists believe that the UN is a tool of the West. The Middle East, India, South East Asia and Africa have only nominal power in the UN. Western powers hide behind the UN as the vehicle for pressing Western values. France is as guilty of this as the US. As for me, I don't mind that we are trying to spread Western values of freedom, but the UN has many members who do not see the bigger picture. They really think that it is some high-minded organization where debate leads to logical conclusions.

This really is best understood if I explain my take on Osama. At the end of the day his goal is to unite all of the Arabs or Muslims in a holy war that places him on the throne of a great empire. He sees the riches of the oil monarchs and wishes it for himself. The reason he, Saddam, the Iranian Mullahs, and the short guy in North Korea will never collude on strategy and thereby give us easy proof of linkage is because at the end of the day they all have the same vain ambitions and each would simply get in the way of others. They are united in purpose and rhetoric, but not in operation. For this reason, success by one is inspiration for the others. No member of the axis of evil can look on the UN as a positive thing. The UN is simply the tool for the US to intrude on Iraqi and North Korean sovereignty. The UN becomes the excuse for taking military action. To say the UN is neutral is no different than saying that the US Congress is neutral.

I wish the UN did not have to suffer this tragedy to realize the obvious, but should they now wake up to reality I will welcome their involvement.

I Have Heard This Before

"[T]he next election will be the biggest in at least a generation".

That is the theme of a piece by William Kristol. He may very well be correct, but I doubt it. I doubt that even with a Bush victory we will be any further along than we are today.

2002 was supposed to be the biggest election. It would be a referendum on the contested election of Bush and the vision he has for our country. The referendum pretty clearly broke our way and Bush won. As a result what have we seen? Conservative judicial nominees are filibustered in unprecedented fashion. Tax cuts are passed only after slimming them down and Bush begging the same Senate Republicans he put back in power to vote his way. The war on Iraq was delayed in order to appease moderate desires for more negotiation--yet in the end we still went to war and possibly delayed economic recovery by as much as six months.

2000 was supposed to be the biggest election. Everything I said about 2002 applies.

1994 was pretty big. 1996 was key as a follow-up to 1994. 1992 was big. Every election COULD be a big turning point, but rarely is. 2004 could be big, but I doubt it. If a Democrat wins he will declare the major combat of the war on terror complete and look to the remainder of the war as a police operation while focusing on the Liberias of the world while calling them breeding grounds for terrorists. Republicans would likely retain operational control (or at least veto control) over Congress. This would return us to the legislative experience of 1994 to 2000--not a bad thing in fiscal terms, but just a gradual slope towards more bureaucracy as the Democratic President utilized Executive Orders to accomplish the goals of liberal socialism.

On the other hand, if Bush wins he will probably get about 3 more Senators and about 10 more Congressmen. Operationally the House will be the same, especially since none of the new Congressmen would be conservative (all the conservative districts already have Republicans). They would be moderates that would guarantee that Hastert is Speaker, but otherwise willing to bolt with the Blue Dogs on the same type of issues that moderates have done this on in the last 3 years. The Senate would still be filibusterable by Democrats--Zell Miller already votes with the Republican majority so having his seat become Republican is not really any different. Bush will continue to split the difference and avoid confrontation. The major combat operations of the war on terror are for all intents and purposes complete. All that is left is to mop up and continue to define new alliances that will enforce the Bush Doctrine. The only bright side is that tax cuts that are intended to sunset may actually become permanent.

I hope that Kristol's piece provides encouragement to the conservative masses to go to work for this election, but I am not convinced that history will see the election of 2004 as a defining moment.

Bring on the Doctor

Up until today I had been a little bit ambivalent about the possibility of Howard Dean being the Democratic nominee for President. Not anymore. He wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal and I all I can say is that it had Liberal written all over it with a big L.

His platform contains a logical flaw.

In the beginning of his piece he argues that we need nationalized health insurance in order to save costs: "The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities."

This sounds good. Free businesses from the cost of providing an employee health insurance benefit and allow businesses to focus on what they do best. Of course as a well-trained conservative I quickly asked myself: 'if businesses don't pay for it, who will?' Dean was nice enough to answer later in his piece: "Average Americans pay their taxes through withholding or quarterly estimates. Meanwhile, corporations and multinational enterprises take advantage of elaborate tax shelters, and billions go uncollected. The need for reform is obvious and compelling, and I will give tax reform a top priority in my administration."

Sounds like good rhetoric. Take down the big corporations that keep circumventing taxation by using corporate tax loopholes. But, are these not the same corporations that need to be relieved of the burden of health insurance costs so that they can be more productive? If we relieve them of one cost and impose another cost have we freed them up to create jobs or invest in the economy? Dean would say that he wants to free small businesses from health care costs and stop loopholes for big corporations and therefore there is no contradiction. When does a small business become a multi-national corporation? Does a thirty-employee company that is incorporated and exports to Japan count as a multi-national corporation? I once worked for a company like that and they took advantage of all the same loopholes that Boeing uses. Take it the other way, does he really intend to not have nationalized health care cover the employees of big corporations? This is the mindless kind of stupidity you get when liberals try to come up with plans for socializing the economy.

I could also pick on the silliness of nationalized health insurance or his plan to put tax cuts only in the hands of those most likely to spend it or his careful little dance around budget deficits with this quote: "the federal budget must be balanced over the business cycle". I think it is sufficient to point out that he has contradicted his own principles in the very same Op-Ed. Anyone who thinks like that will be easy for Bush to run against. So I say bring on the Doctor!

A Purple Heart

For about a week I have wanted to find one statistic: the number of police officers killed each year in the United States. I had a theory that they would make the number of deaths in Iraq look small especially since we are not just fighting remnants of the Baathist regime but also policing the country. I must admit the numbers were not quite what I expected but I decided to pull an 'I report, you decide' moment.

Deaths in Iraq as of August 19, 2003: 312. This includes British forces.

Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the year 2001, excluding those killed on September 11th: 70 killed feloniously, 78 accidentally killed while fulfilling official capacities for a total of 148.

And a few other numbers.

Accidental Military Deaths (not in Iraq or any war) for 2000: "113 on-duty deaths (108 deaths in FY 1999) and 322 off-duty deaths (321 in FY 1999)" for a total of 435.

Murders in New York City for the year of 2002: 590.

These are just some numbers that should give perspective. I am not saying that the lives of US servicemen are not valuable. In fact, I cringe every time I hear a report of another death. I also turned into a blubbering basket case one day when I saw an interview of a wife who had just had her baby who would never see his father. What I AM suggesting is that I still believe that this war was justified. I further believe that we must stay until the country of Iraq is stabilized. For that purpose the loss of life is low and we should be thankful for that. We have not even come close to the point where the loss of soldiers justifies second-guessing our mission.

Regulating Krugman

It seems funny to me that pundits on both sides say: "We still don't know what started the chain reaction on Thursday. Whatever the initial cause, however, the current guess is that a local event turned into an epic blackout because..." (Krugman). I never set out to make this blog a site for spinning for the Right. In my mind part of being conservative is to be honest. Paul Krugman on the other hand chooses to use his New York Times position to spin like crazy. Immediately after his caveat he dives into muck by saying that the problem is because of deregulating the transmission network. He completes it with this whopper: "And the cause of that neglect is faith-based deregulation."

Obviously he has an axe to grind on the issue of deregulation, but it still is somewhat surprising. My big criticism of Krugman is that he waves his PhD in front of you then forgets all his academic integrity in the pursuit of partisan arguments.

The truth about deregulation is that it can work, but does not always work smoothly. Here is an example of a more balanced analysis of deregulation and the problems we see. The truth is that true deregulation will cause prices to rise in some cases and the politicians are afraid of this. For example, true deregulation would make charge people more during peak usage times and allow them to make the self interested economic decision to avoid usage when it is costly. Politically this would cause liberals to scream that poor people are being forced to pay for expensive electricity. First off they are not forced. Second of all if we really feel concerned about them then provide a direct energy subsidy to poor people, don't regulate the entire system.

The really interesting thing about Krugman is that he should have read his own paper before spouting off today. In an article in the business section of the New York Times, Floyd Norris reports: FirstEnergy may be the culprit--"Early reports traced the problem to failures at FirstEnergy transmission lines in Ohio. The company acknowledged that an alarm system had not been working at the time”; and FirstEnergy has been having problems all summer that have been reflected in the stock price and customer satisfaction.

But Krugman says this: "Under the old regulatory system, power companies had strong incentives to ensure the integrity of power transmission — they would catch the flak if something went wrong. But those incentives went away with deregulation: because effective competition in transmission wasn't possible, the companies providing transmission still had to be regulated. But because regulation limited their profits, they had little financial incentive to invest in maintaining and upgrading the system. And because of deregulation elsewhere, responsibility was diffused: nobody had a strong stake in keeping the system reliable. The result was a failure not just to add capacity, but to maintain and upgrade capacity that already existed."

Is it just me or do Norris and Krugman disagree? While this represents significant strides in journalistic maturity at the New York Times, it also demonstrates that Krugman is a liberal cheerleader. Norris ably demonstrates that a utility that ignores the transmission lines suffers. Krugman claims that owners of transmission lines have no market incentive to maintain those lines. I say Krugman needs to read his own paper. The only thing in need of regulation is Paul Krugman—and by the New York Times NOT government.

Simon Says

I am very captivated by the entire recall election in California. Here is the latest roundup of reading: Field Poll, Don Luskin, Weekly Standard, National Review, and Foxnews.

First off, the most interesting points from the reading.

The poll showing Arnold at 42% was misleading. "Last week's CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll, Aug 7-10, was completed after candidate filing closed. But it uselessly included candidates not running... Moreover, it asked respondents if there was a 'good or very good chance of voting for….' In other words, the multiple name numbers added up to 172 percent" (NRO). In reality the Field Poll is more correct because it adds up to 100% and only allowed single candidate choices. Results? "It shows Bustamante, 25 percent; Arnold; 22 percent; etc."

Arnold IS NOT leading. The next interesting fact, from the Field Poll (as summarized by the Weekly Standard, bold by me):
Bustamante 25%
Schwarzenegger 22%
Tom McClintock 9%
Bill Simon 8%
Peter Ueberroth 5%
Arianna Huffington 4%
Peter Camejo 2%
Larry Flynt 1%
Other Candidates 5%
None of the Candidates 5%
Undecided 14%

Everyone points out that Bustamante is at 25% and Arnold at 22%, but then ignore that UNDECIDED is polling at 14%. We have a good old-fashioned political race on our hands with plenty of undecided voters to fight over.

The One Third Strategy
Let's talk about strategy here. California is an interesting state. At least for Republicans. If you look at California electoral history going back to 1996 you see an interesting trend. I am looking at the ballot topping election every two years (Governor or President in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002). The results go like this (I provide the largest third party result).

2002 (Gov): 47.3% Dem, 42.4% Rep, 5.3% Green

2000 (Pres): 53.5% Dem, 41.7% Rep, 3.9% Green

1998 (Gov): 58% Dem, 38.4% Rep, 1.2% Green

1996 (Pres): 51.1% Dem, 38.3 Rep, 7% Perot, 2.4% Green

Do you notice anything? Sure, you might argue that the quality of candidate makes a difference. I disagree. These are very different candidates and elections over four election cycles. The notable trend is that Republicans can't get more than 42% of the vote. Just in case I was wrong about that I took a look at the highest Republican vote getters in statewide elections for the same years. Here it is:

2002: McClintock for Controller got 45.1% of the vote.

2000: Yes, it was George Bush at 41.7%

1998: Quakenbush for Insurance Commissioner got 49% of the vote for the win, Jones for Secretary of State got 47% of the vote for the win, and Fong for US Senate (against Boxer) got 43% of the vote.

1996: Yes, it was Bob Dole at 38.3%

To be fair there are some people who got more than 42%. But I am going to throw out Quakenbush and Jones because both were incumbent holdovers from Pete Wilson days. They held positions where the incumbent should win unless they have really gotten bad publicity for screwing things up. Even then, at no time did anyone break the electorally critical 50%! Furthermore, Quakenbush soon left office under a very dark cloud and Jones opted to avoid higher office because, one can only assume, as the chief election officer he could read the tea leaves. So the real election that year was Boxer vs. Fong. Even against the very liberal Boxer, a Republican candidate could only get 43% of the vote. In deference to McClintock's performance last year, I will say the Republican statewide maximum is 45%. You can only win three way races with 45%!

When a party is in the minority in a bad way the party tends to become more conservative (or liberal depending on the party). I grew up in a one party state (Hawaii), and the only Republicans were conservatives or the really rare and brave political opportunists. The party is conservative because all the young moderates in the state conclude that being Republican or Democratic is like six of one and half a dozen of the other--they just want to be elected. California party rules may serve to exacerbate the problem, but none the less if they could hold majorities moderates would reside and succeed in the party--give me another reason why Pete Wilson won nominations. With the power of moderates on the decline many believe that a moderate can not win the Republican primary in California. Some point at the Republican primary for Governor in 2002 as an example. Even with the backing of the White House, an early lead in polls, and lots of money Riordan lost to the conservative. Granted this may have had more to do with bad campaigning but it seems convincing to many. One must also ask where was Arnold in 2002? Why did he sit out the race? This is really the message that Simon and McClintock should be sending. He sat out the race because he could read the tea leaves as well.

Republicans in California have an electoral problem. While it might be interesting to discuss how they got there (ignore prop 187, the problem is that conservatives like me have left the state for places where gay marriage and high taxes are not problems) the issue for today is what this means for the election.

It is possible that if conservatives had put a moderate like Riordan or Arnold on the ballot against Davis in 2002 that Davis would have lost. But that is a hard case to make. The independent/third party voters went for a more liberal alternative to Davis--Davis WAS the moderate.

If California is anything like the rest of the country 33% of voters are truly conservative, 33% are truly liberal, and the rest can't seem to choose between ice cream and milk with their cake. For this reason the first gamble of the recall was that liberals, conservatives, AND moderates would dislike Davis enough that he would be recalled--I am willing to believe that this was a safe bet. The second gamble was that it could be a three-way race with the Democratic stand in, Riordan, and Issa (or any conservative for that matter). In a race like this the Democratic stand in would go liberal and it would be a contest of whose base has better turnout. I am not sure that the result of this gamble is yet clear.

Smart Democrats saw this equation and wanted a Feinstein who had the moderate credentials to not lose votes there even while going liberal to activate the base. She passed. Bustamante helps the Republican case. But instead of Riordan we got Arnold. Same politics, better marketing. Meanwhile conservatives can't seem to decide on which conservative to back. The problem in choosing one conservative is that both Simon and McClintock understand the high stakes gamble. Neither will withdraw without a guarantee that the other will also withdraw. Because as soon as Simon withdraws his supporters will go to McClintock REGARDLESS of any endorsement of Arnold. The same would be true if McClintock withdraws. At that point the conservative becomes a 20% candidate next to Arnold's 22% and then we have a real race for the undecided voters. Conservatives have two choices to make. First, do they want a guaranteed win, or do they want a fighting chance. Either way they need to narrow the candidate field. The only difference is should they both withdraw and endorse Arnold or does one withdraw and instead of endorsing Arnold endorse the conservative rival. In Option A they ensure a Republican victory with all the perks that this enjoins for the Republican party in fundraising and power--the gamble is over and while technically a loss for conservatives, a positive hedge is in place. In Option B they just might pull off a win, but if they lose they may be in the political wilderness of an eternity and the infighting of the California Republican party will get worse.

All of this discussion may be academic because the third place finisher in the polls right now is someone named UNDECIDED. If the California election data I presented above is any predictor I am willing to bet undecided will mostly break in Bustamante’s favor. Which would give him at least 35% on Election Day--enough to win in a three-way race. That still leaves about 5% to break for Arnold.

All of this being said, I am endorsing a plan that will never happen. Simon and McClintock join forces. Simon is the key to this. As the Republican nominee for governor last time around he has the best claim to rightful candidacy I can see. But he also has had his chance and failed. Simon could bow out tomorrow while maintaining a high profile by buying advertisements advocating a recall of Davis. Or he could become the nominal chair of the McClintock campaign. Either way this makes him the magnanimous savior of the Republican right. Bush could sweeten the deal by offering him a high profile post in the administration. All in preparation for McClintock and Bush endorsing Simon to run against Barbara Boxer in 2004. I think the conservatives have the goods for proving that Arnold is not up to the task and then they would only be running against his fame. If they could demonstrate to Republicans that together they can offer a solid 20% of the vote then Republicans will start to go their way. The Bush White House can have it both ways by encouraging Simon to move yet remaining officially neutral. Since the current electoral strategy is to write off California in 2004, it really would make little difference if Bustamante won or Arnold won while being mad at the White House. Even if Bush backs Arnold what is the pay off? Arnold will not win with a majority of the vote so there will be no coattail to leverage. Regardless of outcome Bush will poll at 45% come 2004. The real question is can a scenario be arranged where Simon might create a nice enough image for himself with moderate voters that he could beat Boxer and thereby improve Republican strength in the US Senate.

At the end of the day it comes down to one thing: what does Simon say?

Fat

I am fat, not over weight, just fat.

Now I have that out of the way, I want to comment on this article. For a moment I was worried that the article would conclude that there should be a government benefit to cover stomach reduction surgery—but it turns out there already is in some states. Here are the money quotes (bold emphasis by me):

Raechel believes she gained steadily over the years because she's hungry all the time. ''I eat and feel full, and then 20 minutes later, I'm hungry again.'' There are both healthful foods and junk foods in their home, but she admits she frequently eats junk food because it tastes better.

When Raechel was 9, she went with her mom to Weight Watchers at the local VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) Hall in their hometown. Raechel weighed in and followed the program but wouldn't go to the meetings.

After several failed attempts at losing weight, Raechel says by this summer, she'd basically given up and was eating ''whatever, whenever. I know I eat too much, but I think, 'Why stop now?' "

Gastric bypass ''is a tool. It's not a cure,'' Wittgrove [the surgeon] says. She will have to dramatically change the way she eats and begin exercising more, and his staff will help her do that. His group conducts a nutrition and exercise class for patients a few days after surgery, and they call and check in on them monthly.

Wittgrove says there are several things Raechel needs to do for the rest of her life: drink lots of water, exercise daily, eat protein first at every meal to feel full longer and protect lean muscle mass during the rapid weight loss, take supplements and avoid snacking.

Raechel is following a broth and Jell-O diet this first week, but that's OK because she's not hungry... It's one week since the surgery, and Raechel weighs 308 pounds, a loss of 15 pounds. She's starting to add soft foods back to her diet. Her choices: soft-boiled eggs, cottage cheese and refried beans.

Okay, enough! What am I trying to say? P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-I-T-Y!!!!!!!!

I am fat because I love to eat and I hate to exercise. Given the choice of what to do in the evening after work I would choose to eat chocolate anything while watching TV. Raechel is no victim, she is a lazy slob. She goes on and on about how she wants to be a college softball player yet claims that she can't walk for very long. Hmmm. I want to play in the NFL, but am I doing anything about it? No. Do you feel sorry for me? Please don't. Does it matter to me that she is fat? For the most part no. Except there is one little problem. Read this:

Raechel's family has to pay about $3,100 of the total of $28,000 for the surgery and hospitalization. The cost of the laparoscopic operation varies widely. Insurance coverage depends on the severity of the patient's obesity and varies by provider and state. Brenda says that if her insurance agrees to cover it or if she gets the money together, she ''will definitely have it.''

You and I are paying for her surgery! Because she is too lazy to discipline herself we are paying for it with higher insurance rates. Obviously some states have caved to the fat lobby and made it mandatory. Just the simple fact that companies are required to insure employees creates too much demand for unneeded surgery!

I am so irritated by this that I have now lost my appetite for lunch. Great!

Liberia

This piece is a good starting point for debate. While there may be many reasons to disagree with Fareed Zakaria's conclusion, there is little doubt in my mind that he is correct that Iraq is a rarity while Liberias are to be expected. It would be good to develop an approach and strategy for dealing with these types of conflicts. I am not proposing a Clintonian policeman policy, but I am saying we need a national consensus on what to do--even if we conclude to do nothing. Without a consensus or strategy we are left to react to each new conflict that can be marketed as fertile ground for terrorists or a humanitarian crisis. I suspect this discussion will help us come to grips with what our role in the world should be when obvious national interests are not at stake.

House of Saud

This is an interesting, even if long, read. I am still pondering the question of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. However, there is one postulation I am certain of. Read this quote first: "SOON AFTER the 9/11 report was published, Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal flew to Washington and challenged President Bush to release the redacted portion. This dramatic gesture notwithstanding, the Saudis will maintain their posture of denial in the near term, regardless of what happens in Washington. If the 28 pages are withheld, the Saudis will claim unfair intrigues based on concealment; if the pages are released, they will complain of false accusations emanating from the Jews." This very well may be the simple explanation about the Saudi interest in releasing the redacted portion, but my theory is this: they want it released so they can figure out who is giving the Americans information. They want to catch the leak and chop his or her tongue off. Rhetoric aside, they know how professional and accurate our intelligence can be and they fear that we might be on to them. What is there to be on to? I think the biggest problem is that the monarchy is weak and divided. There is a fair chance that there could be internal strife in the near future. Unwilling to confront this reality, or force the issue, the Saudis who would be our friends are looking the other way while their rivals court fundamentalists. Again this is my theory, grounded in little fact. But I suggest you ponder the possibility.

Something is Wrong Here

I hate to admit this, but I finally read a Maureen Dowd column I enjoyed AND agreed with. Dowd is a liberal if I ever met one, but she is taking pot shots at most of the Democratic candidates for President--and she did it without once criticizing Bush! I often skip her pieces, but she gave it an irresistible title: "Blah Blah Blog". I was sure this would be a criticism of me (you are supposed to laugh now), but it turned out to be critical of the many phony blogs created by the various candidates for President and even Tom Daschle. Incredible. Maybe pigs can fly after all.

Introduce a Friend!

It is time to increase the number of readers. I am making a shameless plug for you to promote this site by telling a friend. I'll even make it easy for you. Click on this link and most of the email has already been composed for you:) If you prefer just use the "email this" link at the bottom of each post to refer a friend to a post.

Buckley Weighs in on Gay Marriage

I will have to let these articles stand alone with little comment for now. But I do think Buckley makes some good points on the issue of gay marriage, from the viewpoint of conservative principle, here and here. For the conservative it would be preferable to not change existing laws or amend the constitution. But faced with the intent of the gay marriage movement and the reality of current interpretations of the constitution by the Supreme Court conservatives are faced with a choice of accepting gay marriage or amending the constitution. To be honest, I am still undecided on the issue of an amendment so I find these pieces worth reading in my own decision making process.