John Minehan's Blog

The "L Word" (NOT THAT ONE!): Legitimacy

John Minehan — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:50:05 EST

On December 26th, Dr. Michael Vlahos, best known as the author of Terror’s Mask: Insurgency Within Islam (http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/library/_derived/terrormask.htm_cmp_journal2010_bnr.gif), appeared on the John Batchelor Program (http://johnbatchelorshow.com/) on WABC and the ABC Radio Network. Dr. Vlahos’s comments dealt with resiliency and the ability of certain governments, notably China’s and Iran’s, to adopt to systemic shocks.

My thought is that all of the issues that Dr. Vlahos raised are rooted in legitimacy. Governments like Iran’s, which are supported by force and the previous generation’s religious or political fever, or like China’s, which are supported by force and (possibly passing or tenuous) economic advantage, lack the necessary legitimacy to endure substantial change.

Yes We Can . . . Can't We?

John Minehan — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:03:13 EST

In 2009, the message from the electorate was: "Yes, we can!" In 2009, the message from the electorate was: "You haven't yet!"

Too much can be read into these results. This is my opinion of what this may mean.

Christe In New Jersey

Jon Corzine isn't stupid: he was Chairman of Goldman Sachs. He doesn't lack heart: he is a former Marine. However, he really didn't accomplish much of anything in New Jersey. Property taxes remain the highest in the nation. Economic growth is nonexistent and recovery in sluggish, making people who are trying to re-trench financially more conscious of the excessive taxes.

Corzine was distracted as governor. He was distracted by his recovery from his 2007 auto wreak (while speeding in a state vehicle) and by coverage of his relationship with public sector union lobbyist Carla Katz. He was involved in a number of failed or embarrassing policy initiatives, like the 2006 Government shutdown and the Dubai ports controversy. While he was an honest man, indictments of several corrupt New Jersey politicians during his term reminded voters of long standing issues with municipal and public sector union corruption in the state.

Christe, in contrast, was the US Attorney who obtained multiple indictments and convictions in these cases, including Newark's infamous Sharpe James. A moderate Republican, he was pushed towards a tax reform message by the Primary challenge of tax reform crusader Steve Lonegan.

Despite the amount of time the President spent in New Jersey campaigning for Corzine, I think this is less a referendum on Pres. Obama than a sign that a Chief Executive perceived as ineffective in a high tax state or locality is at risk.

This was true, not only in New Jersey, but in New York, where long-serving County Executive Andy Spano in Westchester was handily defeated by a republican newcomer. Out on Long Island, Tom Suozzi has apparently barely survived a challenge as Nassau County Executive. Orange County, after flirting with the Democrats at the local level for a few years, is back to being rock-ribbed Republican.

Since several Blue States in addition to New Jersey (such as Michigan, California and NY) are in this same situation, this may be a potential threat to the Democrats surviving as a national party What happens to a party that controls nothing? Ask the Federalists and the Whigs.

Virginia

I see this as more of a referendum on Pres. Obama.

He just has not delivered enough on economic issues to keep the extraordinary mandate he received by being the first Democrat to take Virginia since LBJ in 1964. Additionally, the Virginia Democrats just don't have a deep bench.

NY 23d

The Conservative candidate lost, but a conservative candidate won. That is the critical take-away.

Owen is a fiscally conservative former Air Force officer. He was an ideal candidate for this District, just as Scott Murphy was for the NY 20th. In contrast, the Republican County Chairs seem not to have gotten the message that this is a conservative district and that,
outside of certain catchment areas, NY is a Red State.

The big disadvantage that NY Republicans have in 2010 is their own leadership. The new state chairman, Cox, may make a real difference. Sarah Palin and the Tea Party/Patriot movement saw and exploited this before the "wise men, " not a great sign for Republicans.

What to Do

The Administration needs to pull sharp right, especially on economic issues. You just can't solve a debt crisis with more debt, although many households tried back in the "Re-fi Economy." (Which may be why average voters know that now.)

Everyone in the Administration needs to read (and understand) these:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703932904574511250528884932.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574499693726128138.html

The Democrats just can't figure out it is no longer 1932. A young working man at a political meeting I attended this summer, not a guy you would pick out as politically active, got up and said, "We want freedom, not bullshit." Democrats better figure that one out fast.

Think about how to get rid of Pelosi and Reid before Christmas. They are the death knell to any hope of Democrats keeping Congress in 2010.

Call in Rep. Paul Ryan and Newt Gingrich. Ryan's health care bills are far better than anything the Democrats have offered and the Administration needs a win.

If the economy recovers, even a bit anemically, a personally popular President can still be re-elected with a wide margin, as Pres, Reagan was in 1984, despite hard times early on.

The Republicans need to push financial responsibility and limited government. The defeat of gay marriage in Maine shows that the country is socially conservative, but you have more than enough material on the economy, Constitutional overreach by the Federal government and the debt. (Which are fundamentally related issues.)

Nothing is beyond change at this point, but the Administration better start thinking hard.

Punctilios and Prosperity

John Minehan — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:39:09 EDT

Some weeks ago, I saw a young woman at a political event wearing a tee-shirt which read: "Impeach Everyone." On Tuesday (Oct.13, 2009), the Wall Street Journal published a news/analysis piece entitled Rage at Government for Doing Too Much and Too Little by Naftali Bendavid, but which would have been more accurately titled, Rage Targets "Business and Government with Equal Fury." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125539072998381441.html)

In short, the prevailing zeitgeist seems to be one of diminishing legitimacy for many of the institutions that dominate our society.

A New Approach for the Obama Administration

John Minehan — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:40:46 EDT

After the storm over health care reform in August, it is clear that the Obama Administration is no longer leading public opinion. In fact, the Administration and the Democratic Congress very clearly misread their mandate. Holman Jenkins recent column in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424052748704471504574442772173150440.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook) very accurately describes what went wrong.

The question is: how does the Administration get back on track?

Afghanistan

John Minehan — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:48:24 EDT

A few thoughts on Afghanistan:

---Afghanistan is a supporting attack; an operational fixing attack, not unlike the Italian Campaign in WWII.

---Commanders of supporting attacks always want more resources, just as MacArthur did in the Pacific or Mark Clark did in Italy in WWII.

---Sometimes, those commanders see genuine operational or strategic opportunity, which should be exploited. Most often they don't.

---This is an ethical issue. We are asking our fellow citizens to risk death or crippling injuries in an effort that is less important than others.

---This may be necessary. However, Monte Cassinos or Rapido Rivers are not necessary.

---MacArthur understood this. Mark Clark did not. There are, in general, more Mark Clarks than Douglas MacArthurs.

---The heart of this mission is to destroy what remains of "Big AQ" in the Pakistani Border Regions. To do this, we need to control Afghanistan as a force projection platform and as a goad for some AQ and Taliban forces to become decisively engaged. Our presence in Afghanistan is also a signal of commitment to Pakistan and the "'Stans," the neighboring former-Soviet Islamic states.

---We will need to remain engaged in Afghanistan after a military solution to AQ is achieved. In part, this is to obviate the need for any future military solutions being needed.

---You can win a war against terrorist elements. You can also drive nails with a screwdriver handle. Neither is an optimal use of that particular tool.

---The non-military side of this may take years, maybe decades. The other side is more patient. They are more used to operating effectively on a shoe-string. However, at this level, this about fair courts, roads and clean water and they are better at it than the governments we are supporting: in Somalia and Iraq, not just in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

---If they grade the roads; run the credible courts; teach the kids; and collect the taxes, they ARE the government Our guys in Pakistan seem, per news items, to be waking up to this. I hope that spreads.

---It is ALL about the "L Word" (no, not THAT one): "Legitimacy."

Health Care Reform

John Minehan — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:27:43 EDT

My views on this issue are shaped by my experiences, as with most people. Particularly, they have been shaped by working as a lawyer, and before that a law clerk and low-level functionary in the health care industry, beginning in the late 1990s, which was a time of great change.

Here are some things I saw and the conclusions I draw from those things.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: WHY THE OBAMA PROPOSAL IS LOSING

John Minehan — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:14:03 EDT

The other day, I heard a cogent, persuasive argument in favor of the Public Option that did not rely on the idea that the Public Option would be the first step towards a single payor system. Unfortunately, I did not hear this argument from the President; from Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius; from "Health Reform Czar" De Parle; or from Press Secretary Gibbs.

Dispatches From The Health Care Reform Front

John Minehan — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:47:00 EDT

On August 11, 2009, I was one of several constituents who met with Mr. Chris White of Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey's (22d NY) Staff on health care reform, particularly, HR 3200. Mr. White was very knowledgeable. His graciousness in dealing with an unexpectedly large group was much appreciated.

The majority of these constituents (I was the exception) supported something closer to a single payor system, as does Rep. Hinchey as a member of the House Progressive Caucus and a co-sponsor of HR 676, the single payor bill.

As when I attended Rep. Murphy's Town Halls in the 20d NY this weekend, this meeting made me see two things clearly:

almost everyone thinks reform is needed; and

no one is committed in any way to the present version of HR 3200, which seems to be without any natural constituency.

I think the current version of HR 3200 will fail. The question is: what can succeed?

20th NY Congressional District Town Halls

John Minehan — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:44:42 EDT

On August 7, I attended a Town Hall sponsored by Rep. Scott Murphy of the 20th NY held at Granville, NY. On August 8, I attended a Town Hall held at Valatie, NY by Rep. Murphy. In each case other issues were discussed but the primary focus was health care reform. I have the following observations:

Toyotas NOT Ladas: Markets For Health Care . . . And Health Care Reform

John Minehan — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:13:21 EDT

If you want to lower costs, increase quality and improve access to services in health care, you must leverage market forces. If you want to sell health care reform, you need to propose a plan somebody wants.

Some Thoughts on Co-Ops That MIGHT Work

John Minehan — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:43:26 EDT

A couple of my friends across the political spectrum sent me these interesting articles on the Co-op idea proposed in the Senate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-esk...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Hea...

In my opinion, Co-ops are the best approach to:

covering the uninsured, especially those with pre-existing conditions; and

replacing both employment-based and government-provided health care for many people.

The Speedbump in Health Care Reform: Patient Choice

John Minehan — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:29:04 EDT

Health Care reform, certainly any reform involving a single-payor "Public Option," is likely DOA. The interesting question is: "Why?"

Based on the people I have talked to, the overwhelming answer is the fact that people are afraid of loosing their right to choose health plans, providers and treatment options in the event the Public Option were to be enacted.

Open Letter to Rep. Murphy (NY 20th) on Health Care Reform

John Minehan — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:28:02 EDT

Dear Congressman Murphy:

I strongly support your decision on July 24th to oppose the currently proposed House and Senate Health Care Reform Bills, a decision which must have been both politically and personally difficult. While health care reform is sorely needed, we need real reform, rather than the creation of a less robust version of the troubled Canadian Medicare system.

In your letter declaring your position to your constituents, you raised several issues that needed to be addressed in the reform process. The following are some suggested practical solutions to the issues you raise.

Health Care Reform: Towards a Plan That Might Work

John Minehan — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:06:22 EDT

Many years ago, I had the (somewhat demanding) honor of serving as a Brigade Intelligence Officer in the 1st Cavalry Division when then-MG Wesley K. Clark commanded the Division. One of GEN Clark's maxims stays with me to this day:

"There are two kinds of plans: those that won't work . . . and those that might."

As it is presently constructed, the Senate and House versions of Health Care Reform are "a plan that won't work." Bringing in elements from the French and German health care systems and more room for market forces could create "a plan that might work."

Legitimacy, Resiliency and Transpartisanship

John Minehan — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:42:04 EDT

The recent death of Michael Jackson, icon of the 1980s, made me think about how much the world has changed since that time. In the 1980s, we still lived in the mass market, mass media world that futurist Alvin Toffler called "The Second Wave" in his 1980 book The Third Wave (See http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Increasingly, we live in a Third Wave world of what management thinker Tom Peters calls "de-massification" and "narrow casting," a world where there is no single "King of Pop," for example. I think that Liberals and Democrats need to consider what this increasing trend toward decentralization means for progressive causes.

National Health Care Day of Service Observations

John Minehan — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:21:42 EDT

I attended National Health Care Day of Service Informational Events in two cities in Upstate New York on June 27th.

The events I attended were informational displays. I was able to talk to about 50 people from all walks of life.

The following observations may be of interest:

Reflections on the Obama Administration and the Direction of Modern Liberalism

John Minehan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:36:18 EDT

Back in December, I attended a couple of the Town Hall meetings that the Obama Transition Team had nationally. I sent the following impressions to some of my friends and family on December 15, 2008:

Some Health Care Reform Issues and Thier Presentation

John Minehan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:31:01 EDT

I am amazed at the half truths being laid on with a trowel by both sides on the health care reform issue, particularly by opponents.

The facts are more complex than they are being presented. They are also less unequivocal. Clearly, changes need to be made. Real thought needs to be given as to what those changes should be.

Left Wing Federalism and The Third Wave

John Minehan — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:01:39 EDT

I happened to see Dr. Dean's interview on Morning Joe the other day. In it, Dr. Dean said that young people, the center of gravity in the 2008 Election, are Center Left on social issues but Center Right on economic issues.

That can be restated slightly to better capture the zeitgeist: the emerging Center embraces Progressive ends through Conservative means. For example, the number of states changing their laws to allow same-sex unions, a Progressive cause, is increasing. However, this is happening at the state-level, often through legislative action rather than through the Courts, a classically Federalist means.

USAA NOT DMV: SECURING UNIVERSAL COVERAGE THROUGH THE NOT FOR PROFIT SECTOR

John Minehan — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:03:48 EDT

After attending the Health Care Day of Service Organizing Meetings‏ this weekend, I begin to think we are at an impasse, as we were in 1994. Single-payor has passionate supporters, but many voters and many elected officials are almost as passionately opposed. Republicans propose fresh ideas for reform, that are, however, most likely unworkable. There may be a workable compromise, however, in the model used by an organization called USAA that provides auto insurance for active and retired military personnel. The USAA model, rather than the DMV model, may be preferable to a majority of Americans.

A Few Thoughts on Korea

John Minehan — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:54:09 EDT

A couple of thoughts on Korea:

Majority 2010: It May Not Be "Permanent" or "Republican" But It Also May Not Be Yours‏

John Minehan — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:12:21 EDT

Currently:

Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny tops the best seller list for seven weeks;

Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talkers enjoy their highest ratings in years;

MSNBC's ratings sink through the floor and the New York Times talks about offering memberships like 1970s era Public TV;

A spending referendum looks about to go down to ignominious defeat in California;

Steve Lonegan is forcing moderate, crusading prosecutor Chris Christie to campaign as a tax cutter in New Jersey; and

It becomes increasingly apparent that a lot of people have become disaffected from both the Republican Party and Democratic Party mainstream, as witnessed by 250,000 people who took time off on a work day to protest perceived excessive spending during hard economic times.

Legitimacy: The Hidden Issue in Health Care Reform

John Minehan — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:01:42 EDT

Despite all the debate about health care reform, the most basic issue remains unspoken: who can legitimately deny a person or (more importantly for most people) that person’s child, spouse or parent needed care?

Neither Roosevelt nor Reagan

John Minehan — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:35:45 EST

Pres. Obama should model his administration, in style and perhaps substance, on neither Roosevelt nor Reagan nor Clement Attlee.

Instead, he should look to Lady Thatcher, who presided over a huge crisis that affected many people's lives with a steel spine and a sense of reality.

Gov. Palin Interview

John Minehan — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:26:09 EDT

The following interview, from Glen Beck's Website, should convince anyone that Gov. Palin may not yet be ready:

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/17080/?ck=1

The scary thing is that Gov. Palin's syntax was probably cleaned up to some degree.

Mrs. Dunham

John Minehan — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:29:57 EDT

Mrs. Dunham

I think all Obama supporters' thoughts and prayers are with the Obama family and Mrs. Dunham at the time of her grave illness.

Grandparents being the remarkable people they are, I am sure Mrs. Dunham is more proud her Grandson is an honest, decent man who married a fine woman and is raising a wonderful family than any of his other attainments. However, I hope she able to see her Grandson elected President.

Education

John Minehan — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:50:17 EDT

Education

This is a critical issue.

No Child Left Behind seems to be more of a "Jinku" or a "Kaplan Course" approach to education and, thus, a stop-gap. I remeber Hedrick Smith wrote about 13 years ago that our system works well for Talented and gifted ("TAG") kids and Special Ed kids and fails everyone else. I don't think that is untrue, although I am neither a parent nor a teacher ... and generally avoid associations, too.

Charter Schools seem like a good idea, but there seem to be recurrent fraud and abuse issue. Private contractors like The Edison Project seem to fail everytime they get a turn-key contract.

I can't think of a more important issue and I can't think of anything with a smaller range of workable solutions.

Does anyone have any thougts?

The Third Debate

John Minehan — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:05:09 EDT

The Third Debate

Some thoughts on the Third Debate:

---"Sen. Government?" Is he any relation to "Barrack America?"

---That someone who probably has a USAA auto insurance policy in his pocket is extolling the virtues of individual over group insurance is indicative of a Health Care Reform Plan that appears to exist to fill space on the McCain'08 web-site. That this is nonsense is an understatement. Sen. McCain should have adopted the House Republicans' reform plan, which is largely cribbed from the Obama Plan with Medical Savings Accounts crammed in.

---No, Sen. McCain, Sen. Obama is not advocating a single-payor system. He has a market-based reform plan like yours. The difference is that his could work.

---I hate to tell you this Sen. McCain, but we are a lot more leveraged than we were in 1929 and taxes will have to go up to avoid the wheels from coming off. The real question is on whom and when? Sen. Obama understands that and you don't.

---If you think registration anomalies by ACORN are a major threat to the fabric of American Democracy, you don't have a lot of faith in American Democracy.

---Joe the Plumber needs a better accountant. However, he will also need a good press agent.

The Current Crisis

John Minehan — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:01:50 EDT

The Current Crisis

Everyone is a fan of Schumpeter's "gales of creative destruction" until they need shelter from the storm. Everyone loves the free market, until they have made their nut and want to "lock it in."

The Second Debate

John Minehan — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:14:57 EDT

The Second Debate

I have only two thoughts on last night's debate:

a) Sen. McCain has no interest in domestic policy other than the necessary (but insufficiant) effort to reduce earmarks: and

b) how can anyone with USAA policy (policies?) coverage on his car(s) say with a straight face that an individual will get a better deal on health insurance than a group?

Bill Ayers

John Minehan — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:44:19 EDT

Bill Ayers

Battle of Las Guasimas, Cuba, 24 June 1898

Joseph Wheeler, a commander of Confederate Cavalry in the West during the Civil War, appointed a Major General of Volunteers by President McKinley, creeps out the officers and men he leads in the Cavalry Division, most of whom were children during the Civil War or who were born since, by yelling, in the excitement of the the first major fighting of the war, "Let's go, boys! We've got the damn Yankees on the run again!"

When Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, Barrack Obama was not only eight years old and deeply concerned with collecting Hot Wheels Cars and playing soccer with his friends: he was living in Indonesia.

For this reason, Sen. Obama probably lacks a memory of Huntley and Brinkley talking about several of Ayers's peers blowing themselves and a Greenwich Village Brownstone up in 1970. Thus, when Mr. Obama, an aspiring politician in the early to mid-1990s, gained Mr. Ayers's support, he probably was happy to have the support of a well established progressive and educator in Chicago. He was probably glad for an opportunity to serve as a Board member of a respected, high profile progressive charity.

Just as Joe Wheeler's staff probably knew Wheeler had taken a "Rebel stand," Sen. Obama probably knew Bill Ayers had been a "1960s radical." Like Joe Wheeler's staff prior to the Battle of Las Guasimas, he probably did not know what that meant.

Many of us, most of us, have associations with people who were not always on the same side. I was a Lieutenant in the Army in the Federal Republic of Germany in the 1980s. Like most Army officers serving in Germany, I had many conversations with older Germans, all of whom seemed to have served on the Eastern Front, about how to fight a war of maneuver. Some of the insights were very useful.

Solders and Marines serving in Iraq today work with Iraqi Soldiers and Militias who had been in Saddam's Army or who had been insurgents.

The fact that our Soldiers and Marines serve with these men does not make them Baathists or Salafists. The fact that I listened to these old German Soldiers' insights and comments does not make me a Nazi. The fact that Sen. Obama served on a board, 30 years on, with a man with a radical past does not make him a radical.

To try to present this association as such does indicate that Sen. McCain's Campaign has lost its way.

Thoughts on the Debate: Sarah Smiles (But That's It)

John Minehan — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:26:37 EDT

Thoughts on the Debate: Sarah Smiles (But That's It)

Gov. Sarah Palin did fine in the debate, but not good. She was telegenic, media savvy and personable. She was not well informed or presidential.

Gov. Palin has apparently made a habit of not answering questions in debates during her political career in Alaska, relying instead on homey platitudes, gentle wisdom and cutting, snarky asides. It did not transfer well on the national stage. She gave the impression of not being able to answer the questions (outside of energy policy), rather than not wanting to answer them.

She performed well on the questions on energy, answering with both knowledge and an engaged passion. This befits her unusual background as both a former State Oil and Gas Commissioner and the wife of an oil field worker. Sen. McCain could have gained the benefit of both this knowledge and Gov. Palin's "It Girl" buzz with conservatives by naming her his Energy Secretary designee, while avoiding unfortunate bumps like the Gibson and Couric interviews. That he didn't do this is a sign that Sen. McCain both lacks a strategic sense and has no feeling for personnel matters, neither of which bodes well for his potential performance as President.

Sen. Biden did well, avoiding being either pompous or condescending. He is among the most knowledgeable people on foreign policy matters and would have made an historic Secretary of State, in my opinion.

There were a few things that Sen. Biden should have emphasized that he didn't. Every time Gov. Palin said he was talking about the past, he should have said that if Sen, McCain and Gov. Palin had offered new ideas in their platform, he would talk about the future, instead of looking to the past as prologue. Every time Gov. Palin mentioned she had cut taxes, he should have simply stated that anyone whose state revenues were almost entirely dependent on oil revenues who did not cut taxes probably should not be in public life, let alone running for Vice President.

I don't think Gov. Palin's performance helped the McCain ticket appreciably and did not hurt it appreciably. Where Gov. Palin will benefit the GOP will be in galvanizing the Conservative Base that was demoralized in 2006. I think this, along with a "throw the bastards out" sensibility resulting from the Bailout, will throw some close House races to the Republicans.

A Democrat controlled White House and a Republican House in troubled times might prompt both sides to work together ... hopefully.

NOTE: Should Sen. Obama offer the Energy Secretary position to Gov. Palin? She is qualified, it would appear bi-partisan and it would erode her credentials with the Conservative base.

Debate

John Minehan — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:49:19 EDT

Debate

The following are some thoughts on last night's debate. The overwhelming thought that came to mind is how a man with Sen. McCain's experience be so short on substance.

Financial Advisers

John Minehan — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:49:37 EDT

Financial Advisers

I think Phil Gramm is a radioactively bad choice as an adviser at this point and that Carly Fiorina, in view of the circumstances of her departure from H&P, was always a jaw-droppingly bad idea as a public adviser for the McCain/Palin Ticket. However, Frank Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jeff Johnson, fresh from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fiasco, don't add much luster to the Obama Campaign.

The wise choice for both candidates would be to capture Michael Bloomberg's support and advice. The candidate who captured his support would win.

Three Modest Proposals

John Minehan — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 14:16:31 EDT

Three Modest Proposals

1) If he is willing to stay, keep Sec. Paulson in Treasury. He understands the recovery plan and it will still be in process in February.

2) If the current National Security Adviser is willing to stay,keep him in place for one year for continuity.

3) If GEN David Petraeus is successful as CENTCOM Commander and deals successfully with the current situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he should be the first Army Officer since Omar Bradley awarded a fifth star as a General of the Army.

"You have to put a cop at the corner of Wall Street."

John Minehan — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:32:36 EDT

"You have to put a cop at the corner of Wall Street."

To paraphrase the Warden from Cool Hand Luke, "What we got here is an inflection point."

These vast up and down shifts show instability. The rough pattern recalls the summer and early fall of 1929, but that doesn't necessarily predict anything.

This could go well, essentially a continuation of the finance driven economy that has been developing since the early 1980s, or it could go badly, essentially Wall Street becoming about as important to world financial markets as Toronto's Exchange.

Joy is fine, if there is any reason to be joyous. Gloom is natural, but it has to be set aside in order to go forward.

The trick here is to know what must be done. It is time to remember a man named Ferdinand Pecora and the fact that transparency and the rule of law are essential to the operation of free markets.

Nobody Who Has Made His/Her Nut Loves the Free Market or Schumpeter's "Gales of Creative Destruction"

I think you need a level of regulation to keep people honest. Someone told me, concerning employee theft, that 10% of employees will never steal, 10% will always steal and that with 80%, it is situational ... and part of the situation, where there is less theft, is effective internal controls. The same guy told me that where the theft starts at the top, it is far more common.

If the Anti-trust People at the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission had done their jobs in the 1950s, the US Car Industry would still be dominant. Instead it got clubby and gentlemanly ... and vulnerable.

The Drexel Burnham Lambert fiasco of the late 1980s gives a pretty good insight. Some times there is a perverse incentive to do things to lock in your profits, even possibly a "Ponzi Scheme" involving "busting-out" solvent companies to pay initial investors, which was one accusation.

I think Ferdinand Pecora was right, "You have to put a cop at the corner of Wall Street."

Honor

John Minehan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:00:26 EDT

Honor

Based on an article in Time a week or so ago, there is a constant war in John McCain's soul between honor and pragmatism. The question for the electorate is: "Do we want to become collateral damahe in that war?"

Palin Perhaps Not '08

John Minehan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:16:58 EDT

Palin Perhaps Not '08

Gov. Sarah Palin is a future president.

That said, this was not a good year for her introduction as Veep. There were too many unresolved personal issues and many moderate women are alienated. Additionally, announcing someone else as Veep and her as Energy Secretary Designee would have given her exposure and the campaign the asset of this energetic and telegenic woman without the scrutiny.

Obviously, it is becoming clear that Alaska is sui generis, that a balanced budget in Alaska in years when oil prices are up is difficult to avoid and that Alaska has the same tortured relationship with pork barrel spending that a super model has with chocolate. Gov. Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson and her occasionally meandering answers had to remind viewers of that 2007 Miss Teen USA Contestant and her "US Americans" answer, no matter how hard we tried not to think of it, in view of her obvious competence on the energy issue, which is rapidly becoming the most important issue in American life.

Moreover, this timing issue reflects directly on John S. McCain, III, CAPT, USN (Ret.). Most Navy Captains from the Aviation Community, who had been Squadron Operations Officers; Squadron XOs and Operations Officers, XOs and Commanders of operational, deployable Groups, who were used to making these types of personnel decisions, would have know not to make her Veep but rather to make her a part of the Administration and to groom her for bigger things. But McCain did not have these experiances for the most part, due to his POW years. This is especially true given McCain's age and the fact he is a cancer survivor, who must consider continuity more than his younger, healthier opponent.

I am not surprised that McCain's bounce was as little as it was and that it is starting to fade. In many ways, John McCain's problem is that he is the prisoner of his experience, rather than its master.

Life Imitates Art (If You Can Call It That)

John Minehan — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:53:40 EDT

Life Imitates Art (If You Can Call It That)

Did anyone else think of Geena Davis's short-lived series Commander-in-Chief when Gov. Palin was nominated? Did anyone else shudder?

Did anyone else, when listening to Gov. Palin's sometimes meandering answers to ABC's Charlie Gibson, have to try not to think of that unfortunate contestant in the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant who opined: "I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, people out there in our nation don't have maps ...."

McCain and Technology

John Minehan — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:22:55 EDT

McCain and Technology

John McCain is physically unable to use a computer. However, there is a difference between not being able to use a computer and not really knowing what "Google" means.

There are older lawyers, who frankly have failing eyes and arthritic fingers, who lean over the shoulders of associates and younger partners, cheerfully back seat driving on the information super-highway. I suspect John McCain is not such a one.

For a man who suffered through an EE degree at the Yacht Club (AKA "Canoe U"), a man who probably had to sacrifice a goat at midnight to Tecumseh, "god of 2.5" to get out of the place, he does not betray a deep understanding or, more importantly, curiosity about new technology.

A McCain Administration---Gridlock and Intramural Squabbles

John Minehan — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:39:30 EDT

A McCain Administration---Gridlock and Intramural Squabbles

John McCain is a Republican in the Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower tradition of good, cheap, efficient government that can be “activist” if it needs to be.

Sarah Palin is from a more modern branch of the Grand Old Party (“GOP”) and generally believes government to be the problem intrinsically.

Any gains the GOP makes in the House and the Senate will be a function of Gov. Palin electrifying the base (although, apparently, not women generally).

Given the above, how can a McCain Administration not wind up “gridlocked” at a most inopportune time? How does this gridlock benefit the polity at this time of economic and national security challenges?

I greatly admire John McCain on a personal basis. He is a genuine hero, but I wasn’t going to vote for him because I don’t like his policies as much as Sen. Obama’s. I can understand people of good will having a difficult choice this year. However, despite the fact that Gov. Palin seems to be a personable and effective Governor of a unique state, her policy and world-view conflicts with Sen. McCain make the McCain/Palin ticket a questionable choice, especially at this point in history.

Palin and Choices

John Minehan — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:51:20 EDT

Palin and Choices

The odd thing, and it may be anecdotal, is that most of the women I know, Republican or Democrat, from the "Work/Life Balance-Working Mom-Person of Faith Demographic" do NOT like the choice Sarah Palin made to run for Veep at this point in her life. They express concern over her new baby, over her daughter being embarrassed Nationally and Internationally and about the not-yet-complete Natural Gas Pipeline project that Gov. Palin bet the farm on in Alaska.

This could be cultural (these women are Northeastern and Catholic, Orthodox Christian or Jewish professionals), but it might represent a limiting factor for the McCain/Palin ticket.

McCain as Fighter Pilot

John Minehan — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:17:16 EDT

McCain as Fighter Pilot

I heard Bob Schieffer of CBS News interviewed somewhere with regards to the Palin selection. His comment was something to the effect that McCain was a fighter pilot, flying off the ship to fight rather than the officer commanding the air craft carrier and that these kinds of "seat of the pants" decisions are natural to him. Errol Lewis of the NY Daily News has made similar comments.

To me this epitomizes why John McCain, for all his personal virtues, is not the right choice. The job we are evaluating him for, the Presidency, is one where a broader, more strategic view is required. To follow Bob Schieffer's metaphor, we are looking for someone with the outlook of the officer commanding the carrier. To some extent, Sen. McCain is the prisoner of his experience, rather than its master.

This view is reinforced by his selection of Gov. Palin, who has drawn support, but not the support of independent woman, the group her selection was intended to court.

For the last eight years, the country has been run by a man with a fighter jock's instincts. The results have been, at best, mixed. Do we really believe we can improve these results by picking a man who is even more hardened into this way of thinking? Hasn't the "seat of the pants" approach become frayed?

John McCain, Not "McSame"---"Mc????!!!

John Minehan — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:17:00 EDT

John McCain, Not "McSame"---"Mc????!!!

John McCain is somewhat in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. As Reagan famously said of the Democratic Party, he didn't "leave ... [his party, his party] left ...[him]." John McCain, a Republican in the Lincoln, T. Roosevelt and Eisenhower tradition, has had his party leave him. Unlike Reagan, however, McCain has been in denial and has been trying to stalk the Republican Party for the last 20 years.

As seen in his moving acceptance speech, McCain doesn't dislike the idea of government, he just wants it to be cheap, effective and efficient. No man who has had four generations of his family educated at one of the nation's leading liberal arts colleges (by US News & World Report's taxonomy and to the great surprise of generations of Midshipmen) at tax payer expense hates the government. His is the old Republican tradition, of Lincoln who started the land grant college system and opened government lands in the west for settlement by people of limited means with the Homestead Act; of Teddy Roosevelt and the Pure Food & Drug Act; and of Eisenhower and the construction of the Inter-state Highway system.

Additionally, McCain sees himself as part of a great Republican tradition of Country before self or party. This is the tradition of Jerry Ford, pardoning Nixon to stop the bleeding, knowing it would cost him election; and of Barry Goldwater (a man with whom McCain had a complicated relationship) telling Nixon that his party was not behind him, his party was behind the Constitution.

However, for good or ill, these traditions are out of favor with the Republican Party today. Today's Republican Party believes in a far more limited government than Lincoln, T. Roosevelt and Eisenhower believed in (and, in my opinion, than the Framers intended). Today's Republican Party believes that party loyalty trumps all, for example, with Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not criticize a fellow Republican."

Over the last year or so, John McCain, in permanent denial over his party leaving him, has courted it by supporting the current Administration. The same man who in 2006 risked his political career fighting for an increase in the number of troops, including one of his sons, in Iraq and against an incompetent and self-serving Secretary of Defense, in 2007 embraced the same man whose operatives slandered McCain's youngest daughter, then 9 years old, in South Carolina back in 2000. He is not "McSame." He is something worse. He is "McPander."

In the words of the old country song, John McCain "has done a load of compromising, on the road to his horizon." But, based on his moving acceptance speech, he will govern according to what a great Republican called "the better angels of his nature."

The problem with that is that he now has a doctrinaire conservative running mate, who ran for mayor in a small Alaskan town on the Newt Gingrich talking points, inapplicable at that level, and her notoriety as a TV sportscaster and beauty queen. (Perhaps “beauty princess” would be more correct, as she did not win?) The problem with this ticket is this new Republican running mate may bring a slender majority of new Republican legislators to Congress. The problem with that outcome is that we may well be condemned to an era of gridlock within a political party, at an inflection point in history when new ideas are needed.

The central reason not to elect this decent, brave committed man is not that his will be a “third Bush term.” It is that it is impossible to say what this man will do or who he will be. It is that it is impossible to know how his own Party will react to whatever agenda he chooses or persona he presents. Neither we, nor his own party, can know which John McCain he will be as President. In short, where we need focus and a vision, we will almost inevitably have disillusionment, factionalism and chaos at the least opportune time.

A Simple Plan

John Minehan — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:15:30 EDT

Why is Sen. Obama NOT running on his platform?

All you hear in the MSM are the Republican talking points:

---Obama will raise taxes (anyone elected will have to, the key to not wrecking the country is to know what and whose taxes to raise when);

---Obama will "socialize" healthcare (the Obama Plan is for Market-based reform, and is similar to a [copy-cat] plan the Republicans just introduced in the House, plagiarism being the sincerest [and quickest] form of flattery);

---Obama wanted to lose in Iraq (Iraq is what it is and we won't have an unambiguous victory---no one does in "Small Wars"--- but we wouldn't have a Status of Forces Agreement [SOFA] and we would not have denied the Insurgents a rallying point if Sen. Obama had not pushed for a time table for conventional force redeployment in July. He also understands the "pottery barn rule" and knows that the withdrawal of conventional forces is only the beginning of our involvement in Iraq, with US AID, diplomacy, Special Operations Forces, etc.);

---Obama knows nothing about foreign policy (Sen. Obama saw that we would not have a SOFA without a time table for withdraw and without a SOFA and a time table we would have a renewed insurgency; Sen. Obama saw that the strategic center of gravity in the Global War on Terrorism [GWOT] was now Afghanistan and Pakistan; Sen. Obama is rightly skeptical about whether he wants us "[a] to be Georgians now." In short, Sen Obama has what Intelligence types call "a good 'read.'");

---Obama spoke to a lot of Germans, what do they know? (many of the people in the audience for the speech in Germany were American ex-pats, a growing group that the Obama Campaign has been targeting);

---Obama has no executive experience (Sen. Obama has limited, but very applicable, executive experience, just as John McCain does. McCain's only command consisted of test pilots and instructor pilots, talented, egotistical people, the same kind of people who worked for Sen. Obama on Harvard Law Review and similar to a Cabinet. Additionally, Sen. Obama also "herded cats" as a law professor at U. Chi. and as a member of community boards. Gov. Palin has the most executive experience of anyone in this game, but it is sui genesis---what does a "balanced budget" mean where your state's revenues mostly come from oil and it is 2008?);and

---Biden was wrong in advocating the partition of Iraq (It is the de facto endstate of the Surge and we would have been wise to negotiate a de jure partition)

The trick to winning is turning policy into poetry and quantifying "Hope and Change." The trick is to showcase ordinary people Sen. Obama helped as a "community organizer," a lawyer, a state legislator and a US Senator. The trick is to be clear, concise and engaged, as opposed to cerebral, dispassionate and too hip for the room.

Vice PresidentialSelections: “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves.”

John Minehan — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:23:54 EDT

Vice PresidentialSelections: “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our starsbut in ourselves.”

Karl Rove, once more, provedhimself to have an uncanny 'read.' He said, quite correctly, that Sen. Obama's selection of a Vice President was likely to be over-cautious, while Sen. McCain's would be bold. While this seems reasonable in a contest between a Harvard-trained lawyer and a fighter pilot, it hardly seems predictable where the lawyer was campaigning on 'hope and change.'

It is startling that neither man heeded the example of Kennedy or Reagan to chose a powerful rival. Ignoring LBJ's famed dictum that 'It is better to have them inside the tent p!$$!ng out than outside the tent p!$$!ng in' is more likely to hurt Sen. Obama than Sen. McCain,but will likely cost McCain a landslide.

It is also noteworthy that both men selected a person who was better suited to another Cabinet position to be Veep. Sen. Biden is unquestionably the Democrat most able to be a successful, even historic, Secretary of State. There is no one in public life,Republican or Democrat, who brings what Gov. Palin does to the table on Energy.

The difference between Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin,however, is that Sen. Biden has no demonstrated potential to be President, despite two attempts at the office, and Gov. Palin is likely to be the first woman to be both Veep and President. It is possible that Sen. McCain, at his age and with his life history, has no fear of a 2IC who will likely surpass him. It is also likely that the powers-that-be impressed upon him the need to pick a2IC who will likely surpass him, in order to be elected.

Even if you respect John McCain, as I do, you have to admit that he is the prisoner of his experience. The choice of Gov. Palin at this point in her career also illustrates what Sen. McCain did not learn while he was imprisoned. Someone with more experience making personnel decisions in the Navy would likely have put Gov. Palin in a position to be groomed to run for Veep in the probably likely event that McCain did not seek office in 2012. Instead, as Errol Lewis of the Daily News stated recently, McCain made a bold, tactical Fighter Jock's decision, which will probably pay off ... at least enough.

Sarah Palin: A MILF Is as Good as a MILE (Mother I'd Like to Elect)

John Minehan — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 10:21:16 EDT

Sarah Palin: A MILF Is as Good as a MILE (Mother I'd Like to Elect)

With Sarah Palin on the ticket, John McCain will unquestionably be elected in November.

However, I will be somewhat contrary and say that I was not that impressed by Gov. Palin's speech. The delivery was pedestrian. (The thought came to mind that I now understood why she was first runner up, rather than the winner, in the 1984 Miss Alaska contest, but was voted Miss Congeniality.) The tone was wrong, as her attacks against Sen. Obama made me think of all she has not done. When she tried to talk of foreign policy, I heard a beauty contestant's speech with laboriously ... and phonetically... memorized names, none of them in any context.

But when she talked of energy, I heard genuine knowledge and bracing passion. I heard someone who understands the ins and outs of energy policy from being the Chair of the Alaska Oil and Natural Gas Commission for four years. I also heard someone who, as the wife of an oil field worker, has a visceral understanding both of how important the oil companies are to her family, her state and her nation's economic life and how unwise it would be to trust in the magnanimity of this cabal of powerful organizations.

Energy is this country's most pressingcurrent issue. No one, in either party, brings the qualitiesthat Gov. Palin does to this issue. If she had been designatedas Energy Secretary, if she had the next four years to gain anational reputation by solving vital problems, to become known,and to learn about the workings of the Federal Government she would have made a great Vice Presidential or even Presidential candidate in 2012.

As things have developed, she islikely to be the nation's first woman Vice President or President, but her road will be far harder. More importantly, there is no one who is as qualified to be Energy Secretary. Anyone who is appointed, likely an alumnus/a of 'big oil,' will likely clash with the Veep, a poor result at a critical time. Finally,while she deeply touches Conservatives, I do not think she is going to flip any Blue States at this point in her career, as Gov. Romney had the potential to do.

Therefore, Sen. McCain will win by winning the battleground states by small to reasonable numbers rather than landslide numbers, as he would have if Sen. Obama were forced to re-allocate resources defend Blue States. I suspect that,ceteras paribus, Democrats in traditionally Red States and Districts will generally lose, since Gov. Plain will bring the base to the polls. Here in NY for example, I think that Rep.Hall and Rep. Gillibrand will not be re-elected. However, Idon't see a large cross-over vote, which means that the Democrats will generally keep Blue Districts. I think the Democrats lose the House, at minimum, but not by a huge margin.

Northern Exposure

John Minehan — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:52:17 EDT

Northern Exposure

Long, Long ago (1984) and fairly far away (Colorado Springs), I attended The American Issues Forum at the US Air Force Academy while I was a Cadet at VMI. The theme was "Improving American Innovation." The representative of the University of Alaska could not have been more clear that: 1) he did not feel he had any stake in improving "American Innovation." as he was an Alaskan; and 2) he was there because he got an all-expense paid trip to "the United States," which he viewed as a foreign country.

A few years after that, a friend of mine in the Army, a young lady from the Pacific Northwest who loved nature and the outdoors---your basic "Granola/Woodsy Owl-type person," decided to spend a year in Korea to get her dream assignment: Alaska. Unfortunately, her year in Korea became 15 or 16 months due to Desert Shield/Desert Storm and Alaska turned out to be ... basically unbearable (no pun intended). I got letters (this was before e-mail) from her about how loopy and strange the place was, if very impressive. (Being the warm human being I am, my answers were, "You were the one who went out of your way to get an assignment in the same Zip Code as Santa Claus" and "Really? It's 57 degrees here in Central Texas in mid-January.") In the end, she seemed happy that the assignment involved a lot of deployments away from Alaska.

In short, Governor Palin's possible involvement in 'fringe' politics (2008POLITICS@cableone.net) isn't all that 'fringe' or unusual in Alaska. Alaska is not the States, even though it is a State. While Gov. Palin has a lot of high-end Executive experience, it was gained in an environment unlike any of the other 49 states or the Federal Government.

If there is an issue with Gov. Palin, it is that (along with some apparent tendency to be vindictive in personnel decisions) which is determinative, rather than any familial issues best left to that family. The fact that the McCain Campaign keeps talking about a situation that might be described as "Juneau," is a sign that they are concerned the other issues might resonate.

The Story

John Minehan — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:41:53 EDT

The Story

Political campaigns are the sum of the stories you tell about your candidate and his or her opponent. I have the following thoughts:

---I don't think "McSame" is a compelling story. It is clear McCain would not be the same as Bush. Per the Time cover story on McCain last week, the story is "McSell-out" or "McPander." McCain has become a man compromising his beliefs enough to get elected, except on the issues that deeply matter to him or interest him, like Iraq.

---Which leds me to the second story you have to sell about John McCain: "McFighter-jock." I heard Errol Lewis, columist for the NY Daily News, talk about the Palin choice as exemplifing "a fighter pilot's short term. tactical thinking." For me, that is one main reason I'm not voting for John McCain, although I have respected him for years. We don't need to trade a fake fighter jock for a real one, we need someone with a real strategic "read."

---As far as Sen. Obama is concerned, I liked his acceptance speech, but he has not yet turned policy into poetry, which he needs to do inorder to sell the American people on electing him. MLK and RFK are the models, but it is a hard voice to find and Democrats have been trying to strike this note again for 40 years.

---Finally, the verdict of history is instantaneous in a U-Tube world.

Gov. Palin

John Minehan — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:16:33 EDT

Gov. Palin

Sarah Palin is a good choice but not as threatening as Romney would have been. She is a governor of a state that would have gone to McCain anyway and whose constituents, when flying to the lower 48, often say,"I'm going to the States." She has family ties in another Red State,Idaho, but no political following anywhere outside of Alaska.

Unlike most Alaska politicians, she has a reputation for scrupulous honesty. This may contrast favorably with Sen. Biden's plagiarism issue in the '88 Campaign. As a former sports journalist and commentator, she should be able to give Sen. Biden a good debate.

I doubt she will become the "It Girl" for the PUMAs, as she is a movement conservative. Some women will identify with her because she is a successful working woman with a large family. Her daughter's pregnancy will alienate some far right conservatives, as will her gender, but she probably gets McCain's conservative support to the mid-90s from the high-70s. She also probably alienates 10-12% of the McCain PUMAs. This seems to track current polls showing a slight gain for JSM III.

Her husband is a Yup'ik Eskimo and worked in the oil fields. At one point she and her husband worked together as commercial fishermen. This might bring some votes from people who can identify with her blue collar roots. I assume she has a genuine "kitchen table" understanding of how important oil companies are to the economy, as well as a healthy distrust of the oil companies' "good intentions." I think she should optimally have been brought in as Energy Secretary with an eye to her becoming Romney's Veep in 2012. For this reason, naming her the Veep designee may be an overreach on McCain's part.

She has more executive experiance than anyone in the race, as Senators Obama, Biden and McCain are all legislators. However, Alaska is the state least like the other 48 states or the Federal government. Most other states DON"T pay their citizens a stipend from the state's oil wealth, for example. (Which sounds like the KSA, when you think about it!) This may well be an issue, just as the Alaskan Government's somewhat prickly relationship with the Federal Government may.

This is not as threatening a choice as Romney would have been.

Due to his age, McCain's Veep really is a key factor. Palin represents a good, but not great, choice. It almost reminds me of Mondale in '84: do something bold because you are behind. However, McCain is not behind, so his reflection may represent a vulnerability expected of an overly agressive fighter jock: trying anything to provoke a response.

Lieberman

John Minehan — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:51:48 EDT

Lieberman

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080828/pl_politico/12922

I like Lieberman. I voted for Gore in 2000 based on him being on the ticket. (I liked McCain or Bradley better than either Gore or Bush.)

However, how could any Republican who is 72 years old pick a Veep from the other party? Doesn't he remember what happened when Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson and then was assassinated? This seems like a guarantee of gridlock and disaster should McCain pass away in office or not want to run again.

Sen. Obama may not just be competent: he may be lucky as well.

"GOP commences attack on Obama," Plans that Won't Work

John Minehan — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:28:58 EDT

"GOP commences attack on Obama," Plans that Won't Work

Some (thoughts) on the GOP attack plan

GOP commences attack on Obama

Myung Oak Kim Wed Aug 27, 4:03 AM ET

The big 5: Issues the GOP will use against Obama

* Lack of experience

It's the foundation of the GOP attack against the Illinois senator as he battles well-seasoned Arizona Sen. John McCain. Republican leaders already are pushing this message hard - pointing out that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden publicly used the same arguments.

"That is the top concern you hear from voters," said Matt McDonald, a senior adviser to the McCain campaign. "Barack Obama has had a tremendous streak of political success through this year. But I think what people are starting to wonder is if there's anything beyond the hype that we've seen." (John McCain served honorably in the Navy for more than 20 years. He spent 5 1/2 of those years in a North Vietnamese POW camp, demonstrating that he is an admirable man. However, those years denied him a significant amount of experience as a Naval Officer. He ultimately commanded a training unit successfully, but was never able to have operational command, due to his years as a POW. Leaving the Navy, he worked briefly for his father-in-law in public relations then went into politics. He has essentially no experience in the private sector, unlike Sen. Obama who has held positions in the not-for-profit sector, consulting and in law. As a politician, McCain has been known for: a) campaign finance reform, a cause taken up to expiate behavior during the Keating 5 Scandal he thought was beneath him; b) an opposition to earmarks which appears to be his only enduring position on an economic issue; and c) an approach to foreign policy and national defense issues that is more reflective of the junior officer he was than the Navy Captain he became. If John McCain is anything, he is the prisoner of his experience.)

* Taxes

Republicans typically use this argument against Democratic opponents and will continue to do so this fall. They claim Obama voted 94 times to raise taxes or to prevent a tax decrease, and earmarked $1 billion to his state.

"If you look at his record in a short time in the Senate, he has never bucked his party on any issue," McDonald said. "That doesn't create confidence in reaching across the aisle and getting things done." (We are in the middle of a war on multiple fronts. We have never before cut taxes in war time. John McCain bucked his party on this issue ... and then buckled when he decided to run for President. Wars generally improve the economy. However, we had a recession for the period 2001-4, prosperity based on a huge speculative bubble in 2004-6 and from 2007 to the present the economy has been sliding down into recession [or possibly worse] again. I'm not sure the current tax policy caused this, but it sure hasn't helped. We are running hugh deficits that would be astronomical deficits, if interest rates were higher. To keep borrowing, we will need to raise interest rates. What has to be done, by anyone elected this year, is to raise taxes and reduce spending. The key is how. Obama has a handle on that. McCain does not.)

* National security

It's an issue Republicans believe is theirs. McCain is a Vietnam War veteran who spent years in a North Vietnamese prison camp and has great expertise on military matters. The GOP will point out Obama's opposition to the troop surge in Iraq, and though Obama chose Joe Biden for his foreign policy experience, Republicans are saying Biden has been wrong on Iran. (We don't know how Iran will develop, but there are some predictive indicators. Despite the good work McCain did carrying the water for the Surge, most of the problems with Iraq could have been avoided if McCain had asked the Administration the pointed [and perceptive] questions Biden did in 2003. Biden was right on Iraq in 2003 when John McCain was wrong. Obama was right that Afghanistan and Pakistan were becoming problematic before McCain or the Administration even noticed the problem. Obama saw that there would be no Status of Forces Agreement ("SOFA") with Iraq until we had a concrete agreement to withdraw conventional forces. Obama understood that Iraq was neither Germany nor South Korea and required different methods. In short, McCain just doesn't get it. He has become the prisoner of his experience, rather than its master.)

* Energy policy

This is an issue that is close to Colorado voters because of the local oil and gas boom - and $4-a-gallon gas. Republicans say Obama is hurting the country's ability to gain energy independence by his opposition to offshore drilling and development of nuclear energy. They also say Obama has no real solution to dealing with high gas prices. (Obama also supports drilling and expanded use of nuclear plants. However, unlike the Republicans and like oil baron Boone Pickens, he realizes this is necessary but insufficient. No one alternative energy source will supplant oil and other fossil fuels, but many alternatives together will. Developing these alternatives will require innovative and exhaustive efforts from Voters, the private sector and the government but will usher in a new era of prosperity.)

* Health care

Republicans emphasize recent comments Obama made about a single-payer health care plan, suggesting he would consider supporting one.

"Voters don't like having bureaucrats tell them what they can and can't do in terms of (medical) treatment," McDonald said. (Rather than a single payor system, Obama supports a market based solution, just as McCain does. The difference is that Obama's plan is workable and not composed of random, airy platitudes. I wonder if voters like having over-paid bureaucrats at Managed Care Organizations ["MCOs"] telling them 'what they can and can't do in terms of (medical) treatment' because that is the current state of the health care system and one of the reasons that health care reform is an issue . It would appear to me that Voters would prefer to have a private insurance system where large numbers of people could use their buying power to reduce their premiums and co-pays, a system that would give them the access to data that would enable them to make better health care decisions and a system that would give them access to the same coverage that members of Congress get. If so, they would ... and will ... prefer what Sen. Obama is proposing. )

Thoughts on What McCain Might Do

John Minehan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:00:43 EDT

Thoughts on What McCain Might Do

I'm not a Republican, but some thoughts on McCain's most threatening Course of Action ("CoA'):

---Obama picking Biden opens the door to McCain picking Romney: the attacks Romney made on McCain were on policy not suitability.

---Romney is unacceptable (due to being LDS) to the ultras on the religious right, but acceptable to most of the rest of the Conservative base.

---Romney has the business background in a year where domestic/economic issues are decisive, possibly making him a btter choice than Biden.

---He can also probably bring Michigan into McCain's column, keep LDS-heavy Colorado in the McCain Column and maybe put Massachusetts (!!!) in play.

---Romney---Two Words: Glen Beck (and his huge TV audience), guess that's actually Seven Words.

---Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina or a "generic" woman won't give him the bounce Romney would. Kay Bailey Hutchinson might stand up to Sen. Biden in a debate, the other two probably wouldn't.

---Lieberman would be a bad choice for Veep by McCain (a man 72 years old does not need a Veep from the other party, no matter how personally loyal---remember April 1865 and subsequent events with Pres. Johnson--no not Lyndon?). Great choice for SecDef and that they should wire and announce for their best advantage. (A bonus, Conn.'s Republican Governor could appoint a replacement who has time to gain traction for election in her/his own right.)

---In the same way, they could announce that Gov. Palin of Alaska will become Energy Secretary. (She will be replaced by a Republican in deeply Red Alaska.)

---If Sec. Rice wants to stay, they should announce that. (These last three are for the PUMA crowd. With the Anti-GayMarriage Initiative in California and the PUMAs in NYS, Obama at least will have to defend his lead in both states and one might go into McCain's column. A financial reserve should be retained to do that.)

---It would be nice for them if they could have Mayor Bloomberg for Education. This also keeps him from complicating things for the NYS GOP when they challenge Gov.Patterson in 2010 ... assuming that Patterson and Cuomo don't destroy each other in the Primary. (Sen. Obama should do the same thing!)

---They could put Gov. Mike Huckabee in HHS, if he is willing. (This also might be a good bi-partisan approch for Sen. Obama, although the Abortion issue could arise.)

---SecDef Gates? Director of Nat'l Intelligence---more his area and I think it lets him transfer the good will he has developed in Defense to fixing something BROKEN AND IMPORTANT. (Sen. Obama should do the same thing!)

---McCain is 72 and, even if he won't rule it out,is unlikely to run in 2012. He has to have continuity. If he doesn't provide for it, he should be attacked for it, as part of his "go for broke" Fighter Jock" mentality. If Romney proves 'not ready for prime time,' Rice, Palin and (less likely) Huckabee give him alternatives within the Administration for a successor. This is a good Team of Rivals kind of situation, which plays to the strengths of a guy whose successful (but limited, he was otherwise occupied for 5 1/2years) command experience was with Instructor Pilots and Test Pilots,the only creatures on Earth more arrogant than politicians. (The same dynamic also applies to Sen. Obama, who also has limited management experiance but experiance running an organization full of talented people.)

---If he announces this on Friday, he distracts from Sen. Obama's acceptanmce speech "buzz," cuts into Sen. Obama's Convention "bounce" and takes Sen. Obama completely off the national radar for more than a week.

General Election Suggestions

John Minehan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 12:34:18 EDT

General Election Suggestions

The Campaign MUST have a financial reserve for an an ad-buy in 'safe' states.

Sen. Obama is a man of vast potential. As a result, his partisans hesitate to give constructive criticism when things go wrong. This is a recipe for disaster.

I don't care how many houses McCain owns. More power to him. This was a bad move because it let him bring up unfounded charges about Tony Rezco without seeming to attack below the belt.

The Campaign needs to start portraying McCain as a swaggering Fighter Jock: only engages the targets that interest him; no strategic vision; and, frankly, kind of a clown in his personal behavior. (Your uncle who was decorated in 'Nam, who is good at his job; but no one EVER consults about anything else that is important and everyone sort of tolerates at family get-togethers because, well, even though you like him, he's a jerk.)

McCain should be portrayed as SELLING OUT, not flip-flopping.

Read about his 2000 Campaign, especially with the 'Stars and Bars' Flap in South Carolina, McCain KNOWS when he is going against his beliefs and he does NOT feel comfortable with it. Charitably, he thinks he has betrayed his values. Cynically, as a 'Big Navy,' Yacht Club Grad Prince, he thinks this is beneath him.

Saddleback Church was VERY bad because the Right to Life Question let him give an honest answer on the one belief he shares with a group of people who probably don't share his appreciation for a good drink and his pride in having courted a stripper named 'Marie, Flame of the South' as a young man. (He has a near 100% pro-life voting record although he has called for consideration of situations where the mother's life or health is endangered in the Republican platform.)

However, outside of that, it is clear from the public record that McCain has contempt for these people, WHOM HE NEEDS TO BE ELECTED. Start sowing discord between McCain and the hard-core Religious Right.

McCain is not afraid to say, 'I don't agree with you' (usually). Sen. Obama seems sheepish. This is not a good contrast and needs to be worked on.

The Campaign needs to talk issues IN A WAY PEOPLE UNDERSTAND. Sen. Obama has really good, pragmatic solutions to major problems---sell them in an EMOTIONALLY COMPELLING WAY.

Except for National Security and ending pork, John McCain doesn't have a program, he has an attitude---offer an alternative.

I can't picture McCain showing the same commitment to healthcare reform he has to winning the Iraq War. Look at the difference between the engaged McCain walking around Fallujah a few years ago (in my opinion, his finest hour but showing his limitations: he was heroic in salvaging something his lack of foresight [especially compared to Sen. Biden's] almost doomed) and McCain's bored, check-the-block visit to the oil rig. This man is a grasshopper, not an ant and we need an ant at this point---sell that point.

Sen. Obama is a great speaker, but seems stiff, cerebral and dispassionate off the cuff. Show him with his family. (Last night was spot-on!)

Tie him to people in Chicago OTHER than Wright and Ayers: Lawyers he taught as a Prof; Clients and Constituents he helped; cops and teachers and preachers and social workers he worked with as an Organizer, etc. Humanize him without the ride in the M1A1 Main Battle Tank, the hunting, the earth tones or the bowling. The picture of Sen Obama with his daughter on the bike with the geeky looking helmet a few weeks ago was EXACTLY what you need: he looked like the squared-away guy in your office everyone respects and you are always happy to run into with his family at the Park or the Tee Ball Game.

To be blunt (like I'm ever anything else?), both McCain and Sen. Obama have less management experience than similarly situated candidates. However, both ran important organizations that were full of capable, arrogant, strong people with great success. Talk about what it was like to get some of the most brilliant and ambitious law students in the US and probably the world to work together on the Harvard Law Review. McCain has talked about leading Test Plots and Instructor Pilots to make up for his lack of operational command. Obama can match this and appear more human, as well.

Something needs to be done. Interest and enthusiasm is waning. This CAN NOT become Dukakis in 1988: 'Character counts.' (Implied: 'Character counts more than competence, look this guy is a wonk with no blood in his veins.')

As one of the two smartest people I know has been telling me since January and as others in this forum have mentioned, read Westin's The Political Brain.

Straight Talk on Biden

John Minehan — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:05:52 EDT

Straight Talk on Biden

Like all choices, there are pluses and minuses to Sen. Biden's selection.

On the plus side, Sen. Biden has been the one national figure to be right about the problems with OIF from the beginning. If John McCain asked the questions Sen. Biden asked Douglas Feith, maybe some real planning would have been done and some of our neighbors might still be alive or uninjured. Even his suggestion that Iraq could undergo a de jure division into 3 canton-states seems to have become the de facto end-state of the Surge. Sen. Biden's son, a lawyer, is about to deploy to Iraq with the National Guard.

However, now, Sen. Obama's attacks on McCain if he picks Romney will be blunted. Nothing Romney said about McCain is as damning as Sen. Biden's comment that Sen. Obama was unready, a comment that Sen. Obama appears to tacitly concur with by picking Sen. Biden.

Romney can (likely) bring Michigan and keep other states with large LDS populations red. He may alienate the ultras on the Religious Right, but will rally the rest of the Conservative Base, who would not vote for Obama but might have not voted. The only rational reason (the men reportedly don't get along) not to pick Romney, unfortunate sound bites, was countered by Sen. Obama's selection of Sen. Biden.

The issue with the PUMAs is that HRC was not considered or consulted, rather than Sen. Biden being selected. Paul Begala has already leaked this, at a most inopportune time for Sen. Obama.

Like Sir William Johnson and his Mohawk allies at the first attempt to take Ft. Carillon, HRC's forces may sit this one out at the very least. More than likely, many will vote McCain, potentially putting NYS or, more likely, California (given the Initiative to Ban Gay Marriage that will mobilize Conservatives) in play.

This and Michigan could mean a McCain landslide, something no one would have predicted would even be remotely possible in January. Bernard McGuirk, on the Don Imus radio show, characterized Obama/Biden as "the empty suit and the stuffed shirt." If that is how people come to think of this, John McCain is the next president.

McCain's Veep Choice and It's Discontents

John Minehan — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:44:20 EDT

                                  McCain's Veep Choice and It's Discontents

Per the enclosed column by David Limbaugh, the Conservative Base wants McCain (a man they have not warmed to over the years) to pick a Pro-Life Veep. McCain has always been strongly Pro-life, but shares almost no other key issues with the Conservative Base. (Most respect his Naval service, but that's about it.)

At this point, the Conservative Base is clamoring for Mit Romney as Veep. He is a proven executive. He might deliver Michigan. He is telegenic ... and he used to be Pro-choice. There is a lot of sound bites where Rush and Sean and Laura, et al. (but not Glen Beck) attack him for this. This makes John McCain's support of Pro-life issues at Saddleback Church (which was either very sincere or else McCain has suddenly developed an ability to fake sincerity that is amazing) look hypocritical.

There is also the Mormon issue. Many of the hard-core Religious Right (as opposed to most Evangelicals/Christians/Mega Church members) don't trust his faith. They might rally to him to stop Obama---or they might stay away in droves. This could turn the election, one way or the other.

Other than California, where there is a Sanctity of Marriage Initiative on the ballot, there is nothing else to bring the Conservative Base (and especially a subset of that Base, the Religious Right) to the Polls. If the Republicans can use "Drill Here, Drill Now" to bring them out for the House races, this could be a Republican blow-out. If they can't, I think they lose big.

http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/obama_abortion_stance/2008/08/21/124052.html

Some Thoughts on Georgia, Russia, Syria, Israel and Us

John Minehan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:54:47 EDT

Some Thoughts on Georgia, Russia, Syria, Israel and Us

---The Russians aren't so tough ... and neither are we. (A lot of the Army and the Marine Corps are in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn.)

---Do we want to go to war over the Near Abroad? I didn't think so. (Maybe I'm not a good Georgian, if we are "all Georgians now.") It's a good idea to pick your wars, as Croesus of Lydia might demonstrate.

---Do we want to go to war over Poland, the Czechs or the Slovaks? Yes or maybe? Missile defense is a good way to say, "Hands off!!!" (Even if it doesn't actually work.) However, it might not be wise to threaten a suit unless you think you have some chance to take a verdict and you know you can handle the fee.

---That the Russians can beat the Georgians, whom the Israelis may have trained, does not mean the Syrians, whom the Russians used to train, can beat the Israelis.

---The assessment turns on: ---how rusty are the Syrians? (In the old days, they were the best Arab Army in the KTO, but I hear they fell on hard times.)

---did the Israelis learn from the 2006 debacle? (I think they need to work on cuing in counter-fire, but that's just a thought from the audience at home.)

---how motivated were the Georgians, either in the war or in learning from the Israelis, if they were trained by them?

---Most likely, nothing much more will happen. The Russians are back. They are a regional power. This might be good if we work it right. They were a lot more dangerous as a near-failed state with nukes. Also, the Russians have some good reasons to be suspicious of Salafists.

---Just one guy's open source opinion.

Sen. Biden

John Minehan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:23:36 EDT

I would have thought Sen. Biden would have been better as SecState. For the Veep, I was thinking that someone with private sector and/or management experiance would have been better. Interesting to see how this develops.

Georgia

John Minehan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:52:12 EDT

While I approve of opposing a large nation preying on a smaller one, I think we need to think carefully before we decide that we are "All Georgians, now."

"'Jaw, Jaw' is better than 'War War.'"---Winston Churchill

Some Thoughts On Sen. McCain's Healthcare Plan

John Minehan — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:33:06 EDT

Hope is Not A Plan: Some Straight Talk on Sen. McCain's Healthcare Plan

The following is Sen. McCain's Healthcare Plan and some thoughts on his proposals. In general, there is a lck of specificity. Like Sen. Obama's Plan, it is a plan for market-based reform. Unlike the Obama Plan, it is a vague plan for market based reform, perhaps reflecting Sen. McCain's lack of engagement with the issue.

PUMAs

John Minehan — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:36:02 EDT

PUMAs

The following may be of interest:

http://dmm.broadchoice.com/www.johnbatchelorshow.com/whats_news_tonight/election_us_2008/blog:4696,10508,356

I infer that the author thinks most PUMAs are Cougars.

Some Reaction on Foreign Policy

John Minehan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:48:34 EDT

Some Reaction on Foreign Policy

Some thoughts from another commentator:

---Does a strong Russia suppress radical Islam? Is it Europe's bulwark against radical Islam as the Byzantines and the Hapsburg's were against Arab and Turkish expansion?

Yes, within the limits of what that means today. Russia can't stop a terrorist from blowing something up in New York. Not that kind of bulwark. But yes, Russia remains the enemy of my enemy.

---NATO expansion seems unworkable---unless it INCLUDED Russia. (Part of why the FRG was part of NATO was that if Germany would re-arm the French and Dutch, etc. would be able to watch them).

NATO expansion was never a good idea. NATO isn't much of an idea anymore either, but at least has some limited utility.

---Russia is the dominant power in the Near Abroad, as we are in North America. Do we want to set a precedent here by interfering there?

I think there's a difference between "interfering" and remaining engage. We are not going to deploy troops to Georgia. We have some vested interests in the region, and it is in our interest that this conflict come to an end. But we don't have many cards to play on this one.

---As people have asked since the days of Peter the Great: When does Russia REALLY join Europe? If the rest of Europe and the US can facilitate that, we solve many problems.

We can't. But we need to remind ourselves and the Russians once in a while that we need each other more than we don't need each other.

---The Russians apparently deposed an elected President. That President gave them an excuse. Georgia used to be part of Imperial Russia, although only since the 19thCentury, as well as part of the USSR. This is not as clear cut as you might hope.

The Georgians have never liked the Russians - but they would do well to remember that they have to toe the line, and concerning the Russians they should shut their mouths and cut South Ossetia loose if need be. The juice ain't worth the squeeze here.

---Sen.McCain saw the value of the Surge and ousting Sec. Rumsfeld. Sen Obama saw the shift of the center of gravity in the war to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He also saw that we had to set a time table withdrawal to lock in the gains from the Surge. Additionally, Sen.Obama saw a need to at least talk to Iran. The question comes to mind: What has the Bush Administration done lately? Is this the virtue of not locking the next Administration into a foreign policy not of its own making ... or the vice of not knowing what to do next?

GWOT doesn't have a center of gravity. It's like the war on crime. It's Sisyphean.

Some Thoughts on Foreign Policy

John Minehan — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:48:39 EDT

Some Thoughts on Foreign Policy

---Does a strong Russia suppress radical Islam? Is it Europe's bulwark against radical Islam as the Byzantines and the Hapsburg's were against Arab and Turkish expansion?

---NATO expansion seems unworkable---unless it INCLUDED Russia. (Part of why the FRG was part of NATO was that if Germany would re-arm the French and Dutch, etc. would be able to watch them).

---Russia is the dominant power in the Near Abroad, as we are in North America. Do we want to set a precedent here by interfering there?

---As people have asked since the days of Peter the Great: When does Russia REALLY join Europe? If the rest of Europe and the US can facilitate that, we solve many problems.

---Is the way forward with Russia similar to what the French did to engage the Germans in the European Coal and Steel Community and, ultimately, the EU?

---The Russians apparently deposed an elected President. That President gave them an excuse. Georgia used to be part of Imperial Russia, although only since the 19th Century, as well as part of the USSR. This is not as clear cut as you might hope.

---Pakistan appears to be coming around. Sen. Obama saw this as the center of gravity of the GWOT last winter.

---Sen. McCain saw the value of the Surge and ousting Sec. Rumsfeld. Sen Obama saw the shift of the center of gravity in the war to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He also saw that we had to set a time table for withdrawal to lock in the gains from the Surge. Additionally, Sen. Obama saw a need to at least talk to Iran. The question comes to mind: What has the Bush Administration done lately? Is this the virtue of not locking the next Administration into a foreign policy not of its own making ... or the vice of not knowing what to do next?

Rielle Hunter (pronounced /ˈraɪli/[1]) (born March 20, 1964[2]), née Lisa Jo Druck

John Minehan — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:55:19 EDT

Rielle Hunter (pronounced /ˈraɪli/[1]) (born March 20, 1964[2]), née Lisa Jo Druck

"During the 1980s, Hunter lived in New York City. As the former girlfriend of "Brat Pack" novelist Jay McInerney, she was basis for the lead character Alison Poole, "an ostensibly jaded, sexually voracious 20-year-old,"[4][8] in McInerney's 1988 novel Story of My Life."---Wikepedia

If the above is true, why did Edwards expect discretion? Again, I can judge no one's morals, however, the poor judgment is extraordinary. Moreover, how do you cheat on your cancer-patient wife without knowing you will appear to be reprehensible if you are caught, especially if you are, I don't know, running for President?

What would have happened if Sen. Obama had chosen him to be Veep?

Edwards

John Minehan — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:42:29 EDT

Edwards

I cannot judge anyone for their moral failings. We all have them and we all hope that we won't have them.

However, I must comment on the monumental lack of judgment shown here. John Edwards had this affair in 2006, then ran for President in 2007 and 2008. I believe he was still in the Presidential Race while the Media was immolating Gov. Spitzer's political career. What kind of judgment and common sense does this reflect?

Why is this kind of hubris so often shown by Democrats, such as Hart, Clinton, Spitzer and Edwards? Is there a "values gap?" Is this because the Democrats tend to pick younger men for candidates, certainly in these cases?

Another good reason the Democrats chose the candidate they did.

Georgia on My Mind

John Minehan — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:29:38 EDT

Georgia On My Mind

Am I wrong in my sense that the current war in Georgia is Russia's response to Bill Clinton and George W. Bush's policy of NATO expansion?

Does it also appear that at least part of this is to push the price of oil up which benefits Russia, a major oil exporter?

It looks like Stuart Gorrel and Hoagy Carmichael got it right, "Georgia, Georgia, no peace I find."

(What, you expected me to quote The Knight in the Panther Skin?)

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

John Minehan — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:34:46 EDT

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

ISSUE

How do you defeat a well-regarded, personable, war-hero senior Senator, John McCain, who bucked the current Administration’s unworkable War-policy and championed the policy that probably won a war that appeared lost?

SHORT ANSWER

You focus on the fact that Sen. McCain saw the tactical solution only after he failed to see the entire operational and strategic framework of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (“OIF”) was a house of cards. You focus on the fact that he did not see the strategic center of gravity shift to Pakistan and Afghanistan, when your candidate did. You focus on the fact that Sen. McCain’s domestic policy is a shambles, to the degree Sen. McCain has any interest in it at all. (Other than ending earmarks, he apparently does not.) You focus on the fact that McCain is uncomfortable with some of the people he has had to woo to get elected, such as the Religious Right. You focus on John McCain's Fighter Jock tendencies, which seem less than Presidential and lacking in gravitas. You focus on the things that make your candidate, an intellectual, incisive, decent but dispassionate man, look warmer and less detached and analytic. You tell him never to be ironically funny, as that produces unflattering sound bites. In short, you figure out a way to tell a complex story in bullet points.

McCain, Obama and the Polls

John Minehan — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:32:13 EDT

                                    McCain, Obama and the Polls

The problem is that Sen. Obama is not a personable man and John McCain is, for all his flaws and marrying the beer heiress and the $500 shoes. Sen. Obama is a lawyer, cerebral and dispassionate, and John McCain is a fighter pilot, one of the "Frat Boys of the Navy."

Both men, when they were young and no one thought them capable of it, did better things than were expected of them. Sen. McCain refused repatriation as a POW when he could have taken it without damaging his career because of his injuries. Sen. Obama rejected the buppie version of Bright Lights, Big City in the mid-1980s to be a community organizer.

Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have different views and are from different generations. However, they share one important trait: you would probably not have liked or approved of either man if you had meet them when they were 18.

At that age, John S. ("McNasty") McCain, III was a self-described "punk." He was an arrogant, disruptive hidalogo, a Spanish word that literally means "son of someone," who seemed to be squandering a natural gift of leadership on a life of pointless conflict and inane rebellion.

When he was 18, Barrack H. ("Barry") Obama, Jr. was a rootless, undirected young man, who appeared to be wasting his formidable intellectual gifts on a life of hedonism.

Somehow, each man found a way to turn adversity into strength.

McNasty, the former disruptive punk, broken and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton, somehow became a selfless man, a leader who refused any favors from his captors and was a source of inspiration for many other captives.   The punk somehow became a genuine hero, a "a man in the arena" worthy of the vision of Sen. McCain's hero, Theodore Roosevelt.

Barry, the hedonistic, amiable lightweight who seemed a prime candidate to become a fatuous 1980s yuppie, went to the South Side of Chicago to live humbly and do some good. Then he went to Harvard Law School ... and then returned to the South Side to continue to live humbly and do some more good, finding in the process a challenging neighborhood, a lovely (and even more challenging) wife, a religious faith (with that faith, a controversial "Church Home") and roots, something his itinerant, questing father, mother and maternal grandparents were content without.

Both of these are heroic stories. However, it is easier to explain John McCain's leap of faith, his Viktor Frankl moment, and people relate to it more easily. This may decide the election, unfair as this might seem.

Oil (Hopefully) Over Troubled Waters

John Minehan — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:23:46 EDT

Oil (Hopefully) Over Troubled Waters

Oil prices dropped more than $20 per barrel in the last 3 weeks.

Was this due to the release of the Presidential Moratorium on off shore drilling? Not likely. This will produce no oil unless Congress releases their moritorium as well. Instead, demand crashed in June, apparently the biggest such drop since the 1970s.

Reducing demand though a market collapse is a much worse idea than reduced demand through conservation, but it demonstrates the speed and effectiveness of reducing demand. We can begin to tap off shore oil in 3-5 years. We could reduce demand starting today and see results possibly within weeks.

However, I still think drilling is a good idea where it is feasible. I also think we should build Nuke Plants to replace existing Oil and Natural Gas fired power plants, freeing oil for transportation and manufacturing purposes.

Does anyone know anything about shale oil? I understand that the issue there is thermodynamic (it takes a lot more energy to get the oil than you get from the oil) rather than environmental. Is that true?

The Pre-Post Mortem on the Obama Campaign

John Minehan — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:57:47 EDT

The Pre-Post Mortem on the Obama Campaign

It appears that Sen. Obama's lead is evanescent. This is a tragedy, as his policies are far more practical and better thought out. Why is this happening? I think there are some explanations:

-Sen. Obama uses ironic illustrations of his points that sound ridiculous quoted out of context (the "Tire Gage Quote," for example, even though it is true that simple conservation measures will save more oil now than the proposed drilling will produce in 3-5 years);

-Sen Obama is a lawyer and appears cerebral and dispassionate (clearly you want someone who can be detached in a crisis, but apparent empathy is important);

-Sen McCain is a genuine hero and we are at war (McCain showed the rarest type of courage as a POW--moral courage. He went on to buck the Administration and champion the Surge and worked to oust Sec. Rumsfeld. His son served as an enlisted Marine in OIF. Sen. Obama has far better strategic and operational insight, but McCain has tactical savvy, less useful to a President, but still good ... and, based for example on George W. Bush, rare.);

-Sen. Obama's platform is far better thought out, but harder to explain ("Let America have its oil" plays with people paying $4 or more per gallon for gas than this intellectual discussion of drilling, even though it is nonsense---there is not that much, it won't be realized for years and its in places where we may not be able to get at it.); and

-As the cartoonist, Tom Tomorrow, said in a cartoon in March, Talk Radio portrays him as a "Scary Blackman, Scary, as with the idea that his trip to Europe and the War Zone was "presumptuous," read "uppity" (But that seems to be the smallest contributing factor. What seems to play is the idea that Sen. Obama is out of touch, elitist and unsympathetic and his initial lead was just someone new on the political stage's 15 minutes of fame, the true point of the "Paris Hilton" ad).

I suspect that if something is not done, not only will Sen. McCain win, but the GOP will gain control of one or both houses of Congress.

Polls

John Minehan — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:02:38 EDT

Polls

I think the reason that Sen. Obama is not far ahead in the polls is that he is charismatic, but not personable.

I think that will take some time to overcome. He is a brilliant, analytical lawyer. He is not "warm and fuzzy." The words "dispassionate and cerebral" come to mind. On a podium, you don't notice, when he is giving a well reasoned, brilliantly delivered speech. Campaigning you do, as he tends to make clever, ironic remarks that depend on context ... which make bad soundbites.

I think his ideas work better and he will win. I suspect it may not be a landslide, as this will be a campaign of ideas.

Obama, Arrogance and Continuity

John Minehan — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:29:59 EDT

Obama, Arrogance and Continuity

I think Sen. Obama is getting a bad rap when he is accused of arrogance for meeting with members of Pres. Bush's Cabinet or saying that he is setting up a transition team. Frankly, if Sen. McCain is not doing the same things, it would reflect badly on him.

This year is the first presidential election since 1952, when Harry Truman's 76 year old VP Alben Barkley decided to marry a 39 year old widow rather than run for President, that no one from the current Administration was in the race. Since we are at war and in the middle of an economic downturn, lack of continuity is a problem that must be addressed. Additionally, whoever is elected will have to "hit the ground running" and should have all their political appointments set down to a low level prior to the election, a lesson learned from the first Clinton Administrartion and one clearly not lost on President Bush in 2000, despite certain distractions.

This idea that Sen. Obama is "arrogant" and "doesn't know his place" coming from Rush and Sean, et al., given the context, seems pretty odious.

Wounded Warriors, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and Arugala

John Minehan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:16:59 EDT

Wounded Warriors, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center and Arugala

I suspect failing to visit the wounded at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center ("LRMC") was a major error, potentially a fatal one. There can be no reasonable explanation for not visiting LRMC, whose trauma surgeons have been a major factor in reducing the number of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines to be killed in action.

While not "to the manor born," Sen. Obama is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law, a former "community organizer," a former professor of Constitutional Law and a United States Senator. He never served in any component of the United States Military. Frankly, he does not, in Richard Nixon's famous phrase, "play in Peoria."

If he is going to be elected, Sen. Obama will need to make the time to talk to ordinary people, especially Military personnel, in a way that does not appear condescending. If he doesn't learn this, he won't be elected.

In sum, Sen. Obama has to decide if he wants to be the next Jack Kennedy or the next Adlai Stevenson II .

The Down Side of Hope and Change

John Minehan — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 12:51:40 EDT

The Down Side of Hope and Change

I saw this following comment on Sen. Obam's Berlin speech by a usually informed conservative commentator:

'The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow' -- attracted the

attention of a trusted correspondent who wrote, '...the idea that poverty is the root cause of

terrorism is widely discredited. No one serious believes it....'

What his "trusted correspondent" wrote is the typical comment of the inexperienced and half-educated. In reality, the chief weapon of the Radical Islamists (call them Salafists) is ... hope.

The man with a wife and children, living in Mogadishu, sees warlords fight quixotic and post modern wars in the ruins of a modern city and watches his children die of preventable illnesses. As a result, he will side with the people who restore order and offer the possibility of a better day.

There are people in the world who do that well, at the neighborhood and small village level level where we have more difficulty. The problem is that these men, while often just, wise and practical, are violently opposed to our interests and unquestionably mean us existential ill.

As Jean ("Roi Jean") de Lattre de Tassigny said of the Viet Minh in 1950, "But if you are communist, go and join the Viet Minh, for there are men there who fight well in a bad cause." This remains true and there remain those who join the Salafists in the sure and certain hope of law, order, education and potable water.

Sen. Obama's Instincts

John Minehan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:58:58 EDT

Sen. Obama's Instincts

Sen Obama has what Intel types call a "read," the ability to see how events are about to break. He seemed to grasp that the Iraqis would be receptive to a time-table for withdrawal, for example.

This kind of thought process appears to be exactly what this Country needs in a President at this juncture.

Some Thoughts on the Platform

John Minehan — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:13:23 EDT

Here are some thoughts on Sen. Obama's Platform and how to present it.

IRAQ: How to Win, When to Leave

John Minehan — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:03:07 EDT

IRAQ: How to Win, When to Leave

Most of the problems we have encountered in Iraq have come as a result of ignoring the hard earned lessons the British learned there in the 1920s. The final lesson, which must be learned, is how to disingage.

Drilling---Some Thoughts on the Economics

John Minehan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:27:37 EDT

Drilling---Some Thoughts on the Economics

These are some random thoughts on the economic effects of drilling, please correct any misconceptions I may have.

The Iraq War Considered Through The Prism of Podhoretz

John Minehan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:08:43 EDT

MY IRAQI PROBLEM-BUT PROBABLY NOT YOURS: The Iraq War Considered Through The Prism of Podhoretz

In 2005, I wrote the enclosed letter (with a couple of small changes) in response to an OpEd written by conservative pundit John Podhoretz on the Iraq War.

The progress we have made since in Iraq is largely a function of disregarding the advice of people like Mr. Podhoretz (and the Hon. Mr. Rumsfeld, et al.) and listening to men like GEN Petraeus.

Time Bombs---Ticking and Otherwise

John Minehan — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:23:49 EDT

TIME BOMBS----TICKING AND OTHERWISE

Recently, author and pundit Christopher Hitchens had himself waterboarded. He also offered some thoughts on the "Ticking Time Bomb Scenario. Here are some other thoughts on the matter and on the ethics of torture.

An Open Letter to Laura Ingraham

John Minehan — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:01:38 EDT

An Open Letter to Laura Ingraham

One of the smartest people I ever met once told me that “it was now keystrokes, not miles, that separate us from Beijing and New Delhi.” She also said, “If the actions of a guy who owns a small oil distributing company in Mumbai effects the price I'm paying per gallon for gasoline in White Plains, New York, you bet it makes sense our kids should learn foreign languages!”

Yes English is the language of international commerce ... and French used to be the language of international relations. It isn't now. Yes, the language of aviation is English. But French was also the language of the automobile industry (“garage,” “chauffeur,” “coupe” and “automobile” itself) now it isn't.

This advantage you cite for English is real and ... temporary ... and likely more fleeting if we don't understand the world ... a world that frequently does not think or, perhaps more importantly, feel in English.

Being proficient in Spanish makes sense in a country where we have a Territory (Puerto Rico) where Spanish is the primary language and where we share a large border with a Spanish speaking country which is one of our major trading partners.

Speaking Chinese, where either China or the Chinese people throughout the PacRim, are likely to be the major power of this century, makes sense.

Speaking Arabic, where we are involved in a great and prolonged war in a part of the world where Arabic is often the lingua franca because of its liturgical role, makes sense.

What makes no sense what-so-ever is your comment that any one saying these sensible things is “elitist.” I am continually amazed at how much you underestimate the intelligence of the American people. I think you and your ilk need to remember something Kipling wrote:

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"

But it's Saviour of 'is country when the guns begin to shoot;

An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;

An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Some Thoughts on the Candidate

John Minehan — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:18:51 EDT

Some Thoughts on the Candidate

Sen. Obama is a lawyer and a politician. He appears to be honest and competent in both capacities. What else do we expect him to be?

Some Thoughts on the Global War on Terrorism

John Minehan — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:04:17 EDT

Some Thoughts on the Global War on Terrorism

An open letter to author Susan Faludi, regarding her book The Terror Dream.

Some Thoughts on July 4th, Beyond Fireworks

John Minehan — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:47:04 EDT

Beyond the Fireworks: Some Thoughts on The Fourth of July

On the President, Realpolitik and the lives of Soldiers and Citizens.

How and Why, John McCain: Courage, Commitment ...but Vision?

John Minehan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:37:29 EDT

How and Why, John McCain: Courage, Commitment ...but Vision?

We do both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama a disservice if we assume that, because he was a Navy Captain, John McCain is a latter-day Alfred Thayer Mahan. At least for me, a dispassionate analysis of what Sen. McCain learned during his Naval career, is more than appropriate: it is required.

Some Thoughts on the Senator's Acceptance Speech

John Minehan — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:46:28 EDT

Some Thoughts on the Senator's Acceptance Speech

Off-shore Drilling Questions

John Minehan — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:27:18 EDT

I have a few questions on the particulars of offshore drilling:

1) Is drilling offshore safer now than in 1981?

2) How much oil are we talking about--how much of this oil is proven reserves?

3) How much of that oil is actually recoverable with existing technology?

4) Given this is public land, is there any way to require that any oil recovered be sold in the United States, rather than on the world market? (I understand that the oil from the North Slope is mostly sold in Japan, as oil from the Arctic Wildlife Reserve would be, simply because it is more economically feasible to ship it there than the lower 48.)

5) What other economic effects would occur? What would the impact on tourism be in California or on shipping in Washington State, for example?

6) What is the cost of a major spill? How much oil would be irrecoverably lost in the event of a major spill?

7) How does this compare with drilling in the North Sea or in the Gulf of Mexico in terms of difficulty and safety?

If it is feasible, we need to drill. If it is not feasible, lets face those unpleasant facts.

Am I right in assuming that the decision to drill would reduce oil prices on the world market slightly even if it were to take some years to bring this oil to market? However, would that also fluctuate and would signs this project was not feasible shake the market more than it already is?

Isn't That Why We Throw the Rice?

John Minehan — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:33:49 EDT

Aren't All Marriages Supposed to Be Gay? Isn't that Why We Throw the Rice?

Why is the Government, at any level but particularly the Federal Government, in the marriage business at all? Do we want to "make a Federal case out of this?"

To me, it's a Religious issue, with rules set by the various denominations. Why not have Governments register and regulate domestic partnerships (of whatever kind) and Religions make rules about what constitutes marriage?

ON BEING PRO-LIFE OR PRO-CHOICE, A RELEVANT DICHOTOMY?

John Minehan — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:43:06 EDT

Bill Clinton was right. Abortion should be kept safe, legal and rare ... and all parts of that phrase have equal importance.

Are You Experienced? GEN (Ret.) Clark’s Critique

John Minehan — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:52:41 EDT

Recently,some conservative pundettes, notably Monica Crowley on the Laura Ingraham Radio Show, have attacked GEN (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark for his comments on Sen. John McCain and his Naval background. I think GEN (Ret.)Clark’s comments are in no way disrespectful of Sen. McCain, but instead offer an incisive and valid critiqueof Sen. McCain’s vaunted National Security experience.

The case that GEN (Ret.) Clark presents is that while Sen. McCain is a brave man, who showed the highest level of devotion to his fellow prisoners, the United States Navy and our country, his Navy career alone did not give him the higher level National Security experience and insight it might have and that Sen. McCain believes it did. Sen. McCain’sexperience with National Security issues in Congress is of the same kind as Sen.Obama’s, if of greater duration, and is a far less compelling basis upon which to cast a vote.

HealthCare: What Market Do We Need to Drive to for Reform?

John Minehan — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:13:09 EDT

What Market Do We Need to Drive to for Reform?

---There is no one Market in which to drive reform. There is a need for rationalization and streamlining of regulation to create such a national market, but rational regulation is still needed. Not even the most rabid of Market-based reformers would welcome a return to the pre-Flexner Report era of patent medicines largely containing laudanum and correspondence-course “doctors.”

Health Care: Morbidity, Mortality & Finance

John Minehan — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:07:47 EDT

The M&M Threat and Healthcare Finance

---In the same way, any analysis of the healthcare system should not be independent of the epidemiological threat. A wise healthcare executive once told me, “Form follows finance.” In my opinion, “Finance should follow the Epidemiological Threat, the source of morbidity and mortality (the “M&Ms”).”

--- In the United States, the primary sources of the M&Ms are chronic diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, and complications arising from them. Given this, it is entirely reasonable, if this trend continues, for any expansion of public healthcare spending to be primarily in the area of education on health-related issues. However, it may not be reasonable to assume the current trends will continue and different sources of the M&Ms may require a different approach to finance.

Healtcare System?

John Minehan — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:01:56 EDT

Healthcare

“Either you karate do 'yes' or karate do 'no.' You karate do 'guess so.' " ---Mr. Miyagi , The Karate Kid (1984).

---There are wonderful healthcare systems in the world that are largely private and independent of the government that cover virtually every citizen, such as Germany’s system. There are wonderful systems in the world where the government provides medical services that cover virtually every citizen, such as Great Britain’s system. There are wonderful systems in the world where the government provides insurance that cover virtually every citizen, such as Canada’s. Our system is like all of them in some ways. Our system is like none of them in others. Like Mr. Miyagi’s protégé, we are both “Consumer Driven ‘guess so,’ ” and “Socialized Medicine ‘guess so.’ ” In the truest sense, our system is not a system at all.

Tax Cuts

John Minehan — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:53:38 EDT

Tax Cuts

---As any first semester student seeking an MBA can tell you, most money to fund business growth comes not from the sale of equities, but from retained earnings and debt. Debt, in the form of bonds, bridge loans or credit facilities, allows businesses to grow, to add capacity, to gain market share and to hire new employees.

---However, in a time when our savings rates are (and have been) the lowest in the developed world, our tax policy favors speculation, rather than savings. Capital gains, from investments in stocks for example, are taxed at a favorable rate while 1099 interest income is not.

GLobal war on Terrorism ("GWOT")

John Minehan — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:42:40 EDT

The Global War on Terrorism (“GWOT”)

“Americans are asking, 'How will we fight and win this war?'

We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest. ----President George W. Bush, Sept 21, 2001

“Only the dead have seen the end of war.” ------ attributed to Plato

“Know yourself and know your enemy and in a thousand battles you need never know fear.”-----Sun Tsu, The Art of War

--- You can drive nails with the handle of a screw driver, but it is the wrong tool for the purpose.

---In the same way, making our struggle with Al Qaeda and related entities (collectively “AQ”) a mainly conventional “war,” rather than a matter of intelligence, public diplomacy, law enforcement and Special Operations, as President Bush initially envisioned, has been an enormous error in choosing the most appropriate tools.

---By going to “war” against AQ, we have legitimized this movement to some extent and, to some degree, have imbued something of the cachet of a sovereign state on an entity that is basically (to paraphrase a Mike Myers character from the Austin Powers films) an Evil Non-governmental Organization, sort of a Nefarious Doctors Without Borders or a Malignant International Chamber of Commerce.

---I say that not to minimize the loss of 3,000 or more of our fellow citizens (and of a number of visitors to our shores as well) in the attacks of September 11th or the genuine ... and valid ... fear that these events caused. Instead, I describe it this way because that is what AQ is and understanding the opponent is the first step required to winning something other than a Pyrrhic victory.

---Additionally, part of the goal of the 9-11 attacks was arguably to drag the United States into prolonged and potentially economically debilitating wars in the Dar-al-Islam, something like what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s. In contrast, the Clinton administration did not rise to the bait of the Khobar Towers bombing, the East African Embassy attacks or the attack on the USS Cole. Although the United States is more economically robust than the former Soviet Union, a more nuanced response may have been preferable in retrospect, especially where the current situation in the Dar-al-Islam has strengthened the positions of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, at least in the short term.

AQ Is A Meme.

---AQ is an idea. It is a franchise. It is a pose that similar ( but diverse) radical Muslim groups (let’s call them Salafists, for a good, but not perfect, way of identifying them), looking at failed states like Somalia and Afghanistan or incompetent states like the Arab Socialist Dictatorships or compromise states like the Arab Monarchies of the Arabian Peninsula, have decided to strike.

---They know it is time for a change. They also rely, as human beings tend to in times of trouble, on their religion. The aspect of their religion that they tend to rely on is not the wisdom of Averroës , the tolerance of the Kingdom of Grenada (or even of the annual tolerance of the Hajj) or the mystical enlightenment of the Sufi tradition. Instead, they often rely on the subversion and calculation of the Old Man of the Mountain and the explosive violence of the Arab Horsemen who surged out of the Arabian Peninsula in 632CE to conquer the most desirable parts of the world they knew.

---These people may, or may not, respect ... or even listen to ... the “Big AQ” representatives who may be in their midst, but they gain cachet, call it “street cred,” by harboring any that are. While some speak of reverses AQ has had in Iraq, this may constitute nothing more than a conflict between one faction of Salafists and another, which the general trend of the murder of tribal leaders in what should be secure areas tends to confirm.

---These are poor people’s movements, operating on a (frayed) shoe string in the World’s least desirable locations. As such, any money “Big AQ” can provide is appreciated.

---Additionally, these groups usually have a pretty good idea what the average people living in small rural villages and in neighborhoods of decaying cities need. Generally, the needs are the same: someone to enforce and adjudicate criminal law; someone who can justly determine civil disputes in a way that simple people can understand; someone who can teach the children in their own language and maybe enough Arabic, Inshallah, to be able to read the Koran; some increased (it doesn’t have to be much) access to water and sanitation; and maybe someone who can preach in a way average people can understand and be inspired by in the Mosque.

---None of these needs would have been unfamiliar to Jacques Bonhomme and his peers burning the Seigneur’s castle during a Jacquerie in the late Middle Ages or to the Germans betrayed by Luther during the Peasants Revolt in the 1520s.

---Because these Salafist groups include, to varying degrees based on nationality and personalities and conditions, suicide bombers who want to die gloriously for their cause and men who want to live humbly for their cause by dispensing justice honestly in village and neighborhood Sharia Courts, it is easy to think you have won and to be stunned by the movements’ resurgence, as has occurred recently in Afghanistan.

---Leaders must always keep in mind the great lesson taught by the late Bernard Fall, the brilliant expert on Counter Insurgency (“COIN”), who was himself an insurgent fighting the Germans as part of the Marquis during World War II, who fought insurgents in French Indo-china as a French Officer in the late 1940s and who gave his life in 1966 while advising his adopted country’s government as an expert during the Viet Nam War, that where “insurgents’ provide essential services they become the “government.”

----Thus, we can send brilliant military and civilian lawyers by the platoon to Iraq and other places in order to have them develop a legal system that artfully entwines Sharia and the Code Napoleon, but if the average Iraqi or Afghan or Somali’s interactions with the law are with Sharia Courts run by Salafists, you have a crisis of legitimacy. If people rely on the Madhi Army for security, the Madhi Army has become the government.

---The question then remains: how do we win?

The GWOT is an Information Operations (“IO”) War

---This war will not be won, and may well be lost, by air strikes.

---The key to “victory” is twofold: 1) restore order and basic amenities of life at the lowest level possible in places where doing this is vital; and 2) make sure people know about it, urbe et orbe. The continuing warning that you must consistently bear in mind is that any victory is likely to be limited and arguable.

---Big efforts, Ambassador Paul Bremmer’s unavailing attempts to increase power output nation-wide in Iraq during the days of the Coalition Provisional Authority (“CPA”) comes to mind, are likely to fail. Small efforts, fixing a bridge across a river where nomads often have lost animals that broke legs on the uneven planks of the bridge, pay dividends. This is counterintuitive to most Americans.

---Equally counterintuitive is that what is needed varies by country and within cities and even within neighborhoods.

---I heard a story from an experienced military Civil Affairs (“CA”) Officer once and I have no idea if he was exaggerating (although I assume he was). He said he drove into a small city right after the Invasion of Iraq five years ago. He said, “I have a Vet with me, we can heal your goats.” The people in the small city said, “What do you mean ‘Goats,’ we write software here, can you turn the power back on or the water?” The CA officer replied, “Well, we can fix your goats ....” As he left, he said the people were picking up stones to throw.

---This story, literally true or not, illustrates that Intelligence personnel should have given the Civil Affairs operators the information they need to deal with ... and influence ... the population and that populations are often more diverse than we expect.

---This process, if it is done right, is slow. It relies on sharing information. It relies on not fighting 10 wars for one year (or six months) at a time, but one ten year war. It relies on being aware that the insurgency grows and changes over time and that it is often not the insurgency but these insurgencies.

---The model is the efforts of Crook and Miles in the Apache Wars, campaigns fought by the United States Cavalry at the close of the 19th Century, mostly relying not on carbine and saber but knowledge of the Apaches’ language and culture and diplomatic efforts that allowed “hot pursuit” into Mexico, denying the War Bands sanctuary. Such efforts may have limited results, allowing the Apache to live on their own lands if they do so peacefully, rather than forcing them onto reservations as in other places with other native peoples.

---Understanding the nature of this kind of war, which the Army calls “Low Intensity Conflict” and the Marine Corps calls “Small Wars,” is an indispensable precondition for victory. It is a President’s duty to explain the nature of this kind of war to his fellow citizens so that they can understand the cost and effort involved.

---If the President is perceived as being less than brutally honest about costs and benefits, he engineers failure.

---In this war, perception is truth and the perception must be (in Cromwell’s phrase) that we have chosen “honest men to be Captains of Horse.” It is a war which cannot be fought only with Soldiers, cannot be won at all in conventional terms but which would be disastrous to lose. It is a war whose basic ambiguity must be known to every one of the American people and to the world.

---This is not ... and cannot ... be only a military effort.

---As President Bush said more than 6 years ago, it must involve the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the Department of Justice, especially the FBI, non-governmental actors such as NGOs, businesses and religious communities, and, as has been forgotten thus far, our allies. It must combine Machiavelli’s steely determination to become involved only where it is most advantageous, Mother Theresa’s selfless desire to help at the lowest level possible and P.T. Barnum’s bumptious desire to publicize success to the greatest extent possible.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

John Minehan — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:39:01 EDT

Miscellaneous Thoughts

---The State Department must learn to think in terms of regions and not solely in terms of individual countries where we have embassies.

---Developing State Department entities analogous to Department of Defense Commands (EUCOM, PACOM, AFRICOM, etc.), might reduce this parochial focus.

---Exceptionally highly qualified individuals (former Presidents, distinguished former leaders of Congress, distinguished former Cabinet Members, and distinguished former Senior Flag Officers [Three-Star Level and above]) should be identified on a non-partisan basis to be appointed to serve as Pro-counsels in failed states, where the US and its allies have had to intervene to restore order.

---These should be individuals whose appointments signal US resolve, such as former Pres. Clinton or former Secretary of State Powell, rather than a more obscure individual such as Ambassador Bremmer or LTG (Ret.) Garner.

---A training program, appropriate for these individuals’ attainments and experience, should be developed jointly for these individuals by the Department of State and the Department of Defense.

---Consider asking the current National Security Adviser to stay for one year for continuity purposes in war time.

---GEN (Ret.) Wesley K. Clark would make an exceptional Secretary of Defense. Additionally, his appointment would constitute a tolerable and useful olive branch to Senator Clinton’s faction after this fractious campaign.

---GEN (Ret.) Eric K. Shinseki would make an exceptional Secretary of the Army and his appointment would be some recompense for the shabby way this distinguished professional Soldier was treated by the last Administration while serving as Army Chief of Staff.

---Senator Biden would make a fine Secretary of State, if for nothing else, because he has had better instincts on Iraq than virtually anyone else. Besides, he’s also a clean old man. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist it.)

---An effort should be made to start vetting potential appointees now for “nanny-gate” problems, unfortunate publications and other issues. This is especially true, given the difficulties created by Sen. Thomas Eagleton’s brief and troubled appointment as Vice-presidential candidate in 1972, of the Vice Presidency, particularly given the parallel of a nomination process that appears to be heading for the Convention without a candidate definitively selected.

Building "The Army You Want"

John Minehan — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:37:56 EDT

Building “The Army You Want.”

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want,"---Hon. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (2004)

“Someday this war's gonna end...”---Bill Kilgore, LTC, AR, Commanding 1/9 CAV, 1st Cavalry Division, Apocalypse Now (1979)

---The end of war is a joyous times for victors, but not without sadness.

---Military forces grow almost inevitably smaller. Distinguished units fold their cherished guidons. Some who had wished to continue to serve must leave the profession of arms. Some who stay will never realize their true potential in a smaller military force. However, such moments give our Nation’s civilian and military leaders the rare opportunity to shape the forces in being at the start of the next conflict.

---The Art of War, attributed to Sun Tsu and probably written during China’s violent Warring States Period, has one central theme: the ruinous cost of unsuccessful or bloated military forces. Large, ineffective forces are an enormous drain on the public purse and keep the Nation no safer than smaller, cheaper, more effective forces.

---The array of potential threats implicates the possibility of both potential Medium Intensity Conflicts and potential Low Intensity Conflicts. We have no choice but to prepare for both.

---The end of the first phase of the GWOT, following the probable draw down of our forces in Iraq next year, will afford such a moment to adjust our military forces. I suggest the following adjustments be made:

Marine Corps

---The Marine Corps should be expanded to four full-strength, Active Duty Marine Expeditionary Forces (“MEF”) and one full- strength, Reserve MEF (each consisting of one Marine Division [“MarDiv’], one Marine Air Wing [“MAW”], one Field Service Support Group [“FSSG”] and ancillary elements).

---The Marine Corps would become the Expeditionary element of our National Defense System. The Marine Corps should be able to provide, within a stated period of time, a flexible response to any immediate need for US Forces in immature theaters of operation. The range of its capability should be anything from an Infantry Battalion, reinforced with Air and other assets (a “Marine Expeditionary Unit [Special Operations Capable]” or “MEU [SOC]”), to one or more MEFs.

---All Marine operations will be conducted as Marine Air Ground Task Forces (“MAGTFs”). Obviously, all Marine Operations are conducted in concert with the Navy.

---Army, Special Operations Command (“SOCOM”) and Air Force personnel would be attached to Marine deployments, when and how required.

---The Marine Corps should not be involved in sustained ground operations lasting longer than one year or be employed extensively in sustained coalition operations. The Marine Corps is in no sense a “second Army,” and has its own raison d’être.

---It should be noted that traditionally the President has been able to commit Marines without a formal Declaration of War or Congressional approval.

Army

---The Active Army should be reduced to one Corps Headquarters and four maneuver Divisions (one Airborne [“ABN”] Division, one Air Assault [“AASLT”] Division, one Mechanized Infantry [“Mech”] Division and one Armor [“AR”] Division). Any existing Corps-level Artillery elements will be grouped into one or more Artillery Divisions. Any existing Corps-level Aviation elements will be grouped into one or more Cavalry Divisions (Air Combat). The 2d, 3d and 11th Armored Cavalry Regiments will be configured and manned as Cavalry units, rather than as heavy maneuver brigades or training units, to perform the standard cavalry missions of reconnaissance, and economy of force operations. Existing “Paper Army” Headquarters will become the basis for four Regional Readiness Commands, providing training support to the applicable State's National Guard, ROTC units and Army Reserve personnel in that region. Cadet Command would be eliminated. Other non-war-fighting Army fiefdoms would be ruthlessly reduced in size or eliminated.

---As the smaller Army will have fewer non-operational tasks, the training of maneuver units will include both operations in their standard Battlefield Operating Systems of ABN, AASLT, MECH and AR, as well as peacekeeping/peace enforcement operations using Styker vehicles.

---All Divisions should be able to cross attach Army or National Guard Maneuver Brigades (of whatever type) or Marine Regiments. Each Division’s logistics elements, at Main Support Battalion and Division Support Command level, would be configured to allow this cross attachment.

---Restoring Air Force Tactical Aviation (“TacAir”) to the Army should be considered, Specifically, the assets and personnel to conduct the Close Air Support (“CAS”) and Battlefield Air Interdiction (“BAI”) missions should be returned to the Army.

---The Army would become the Ground Maneuver, Advanced Tactical and Operational Fire Support/Targeting and Coalition Warfare element of our National Defense System. It would deploy to mature theaters to provide sophisticated Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (“RSTA”) capabilities and fire support to coalition forces. It should provide highly trained, technically sophisticated and robust maneuver forces equipped with state-of-the-art equipment to “stiffen” coalition forces.

---Army forces would be cross attached, where appropriate, to ensure the success of Marine Corps Expeditionary Operations. All Army and Marine Corps units down to the Brigade/ Regimental level should be configured to be able to exchange Liaison Officers.

---Senior NCOs and Officers at every grade would be expected to be proficient Liaison Officers, with US and foreign forces. Proficiency in these skills would be considered an important indicator of potential for promotion to the commissioned grade of Lieutenant Colonel or above or for selection to the non-commissioned grade of Sergeant Major and for appointment to the position of Command Sergeant Major. Warrant Officers would be required to demonstrate proficiency as Liaison Officers within their areas of technical expertise. Demonstrated skill in this area would be a significant consideration for promotion to the grade of Chief Warrant Officer/CWO-5.

---The National Guard would be reconfigured to provide Civil Affairs, Transportation, Medical/ Dental/Veterinary, basic Engineering and Infantry/Military Police security functions, incorporating functions, personnel and units currently assigned to the Army Reserve.

---Such reconfigured National Guard Units would be useful to Governors in the events of disasters on the order of 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina. Additionally, such reconfigured National Guard units would be useful to the President, if such forces were federalized, in conducting Operations Other Than War (“OOTW”) support and providing rear area and route security and CA and Civil Military Operations ("CMO") functions in Medium and Low Intensity Conflicts.

---Branch Qualified (those who have attended their Branch Career Course, Commanded at the Company-level and who have served as primary or special staff officers at the Battalion or Brigade level) Active Army Officers in the Grade of Captain or Major should expect to be seconded to a foreign Army, generally in the Middle East, Africa or South America.

---Army Special Forces (commonly referred to as “Green Berets”) would support the training of the National Guard and would operate a formal school to train those Captains and Majors seconded to foreign armies, similar to (but more tactically and operationally focused) to the school used to train Defense Attaches.

---Foreign Language proficiency and cultural fluency would be an important consideration in the promotion of officers to the grades of Lieutenant Colonel or above.

---The Army Reserve should become a “holding tank” for individuals with necessary civilian and military skills. Current laws on the number of individuals authorized to serve in the Military at each grade should be modified for Reserve personnel. A determination should be made at each mobilization of which Non-commissioned, Warrant or Commissioned Grade a given individual would be mobilized in, based on their skills, education and training, experience, the mission and the Army’s needs. Regional Readiness Commands would provide extensive opportunity for distance learning on Military topics and short training tours and should stay abreast of these volunteers’ professional training and attainments.

---This concept is similar to Douglas Feth’s suggestion of a State Department Civilian Reserve Corps, but the concept seems to be one that could be more appropriately managed by the Army.

Navy

---The overarching goal of all the Navy’s diverse Communities (Surface Line, Aviation, Special Warfare, Submariners, Engineering, Intelligence, etc.) should be to determine how best to reconfigure the Navy to both support expanded Expeditionary and Littoral Warfare requirements in support of the Marine Corps's Expeditionary Operations and to retain Command of the Sea Lanes, both in a time of major resource constraints.

Air Force

---Consideration should be given to returning TacAir to the Army to facilitate the Air Force’s mission as the National Defense System’s Strategic Fires, Space and Air Transportation element.

---The Navy and the Air Force should work closely to maximize the Air Force’s contribution to command of the Sea Lanes in a time of resource constraint.

---SOCOM and the Air Force will maintain liaison concerning the air delivery of SOCOM personnel. This shall be considered a foundation mission of the Air Force.

---Air Force personnel should expect to be cross attached, where appropriate, to ensure the success of Marine Corps Expeditionary Operations.

Special Operations Command (“SOCOM”)

---Consideration should be given to making Special Operations Command a separate service.

---Special Operations Command is the Strategic Operations element of the National Defense System, operating at all points along the conflict spectrum from OOTW to High Intensity Conflict.

---Special Operations Forces should expect to be cross attached, where appropriate, to ensure the success of Marine Corps Expeditionary Operations.

---Army Special Forces (commonly referred to as “Green Berets”) would support the training of the National Guard and would operate a school to train those Captains and Majors seconded to foreign armies.

Judges

John Minehan — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:35:52 EDT

Judges

---This issue is the great shibboleth of the American Right. Pundits and “Talking Heads” will implore their constituencies to vote for Senator McCain because they don’t want you appointing “Activist Judges” to the Federal Courts and that holy of holies, The United States Supreme Court (“USSC”).

---The Republican Party, at least the Grand Old Party of yore, offers a wonderfully effective, but seemingly abandoned, approach for the appointment of Justices to the USSC. The Republican Party once tended to appoint distinguished judges from state high courts to the USSC. Theodore Roosevelt appointed Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, to the USSC. President Hoover appointed Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, from the New York Court of Appeals, to the USSC. President Eisenhower appointed William J. Brennan, Jr. to the USSC from the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

---What each of these men brought to the table was not only a distinguished record as a judge on an influential appellate court, but a distinguished record on an influential appellate court that was final, at least as to the common law and constitution of that state. Justice Jackson once said that it was vital with the USSC to always remember that it is supreme because it is final rather than final because it is supreme. A state high court judge learns that lesson in finality in a way that the most erudite judge on a Federal Circuit Court cannot.

---It is regrettable that the Republican Presidents of late have been appointing individuals to the Supreme Court more in the tradition of William O. (“Wild Bill”) Douglas, brilliant legal scholars and mandarins dwelling in the rarefied air of policy and regulation, rather than jurists in the tradition of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, brilliant judges deciding cases and adjudicating controversies in the arena of people and businesses’ conflicts and strivings.

---As Sen. Obama is a practicing lawyer with a distinguished academic background, he probably has strong instincts and trusted advisers who can tell who the best of the state high court judges are. Additionally, I would recommend seeking the input not only of the American Bar Association, but also of both more ideologically–driven groups of lawyers across the political spectrum, especially including the Federalist Society, and a wide variety of associations of lawyers practicing in a wide variety of specialties, including but not limited to, The American Trail Lawyers Association and the American Health Lawyer’s Association.

--- Those state high court judges that these conflicting constituencies agree are brilliant and honest, but difficult, should be the prime candidates. In short, you need to appoint the Sir Thomas Moores of the world to such positions.

---The key consideration should be judicial temperament rather than any political or ideological litmus test. Judges appointed to the USSC must understand our unique system which has both a written Constitution and a common law. They must honor the “original intent of the Framers” while understanding that many of the Framers never intended the Constitution to last as long as it has, that the Constitution was initially a compromise that probably, as best we can ascertain from the available (and rather limited) evidence, reflects conflicting intents as to the document’s ultimate impact and which has since been amended and construed.