Politics, Government & Public Policy: September 2004 Archives

Remember, there are other choices.

I'll just write a little because I'm sure other people will be writing a lot. First off, I scored the debate like a boxing match, giving each candidate a score for each exchange. According to my total, it came to 287 - 273 in President Bush's favor -- but admittedly, I'm biased. I counted approximately 30 camera shots that violated the debate rules. Senator Kerry mentioned or alluded to Vietnam 5 times, and mentioned or alluded to Ronald Reagan twice.

President Bush did a good job staying on message, but he stumbled a few times and hesitated over words a little too much. His best point was that John Kerry can't expect to get more allies on board in Iraq if he insists that it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. He could have pointed out, but didn't, that Germany and France have said they won't send troops no matter who wins the election, and that they don't have many quality troops to send, anyway, and that they were making money off Saddam. Bush also dodged a question about whether or not a 9/11-size terrorist attack would be more likely if Kerry gets elected. I thought the President handled the question about Kerry's character superbly and graciously. However, I had high expectations for Bush and he didn't live up to all of them.

Senator Kerry did better than I expected. I don't like most of his positions, but I think he did a good job presenting them. Kerry strikes me as a better extemporaneous speaker than rehearsed, and I was impressed by his speaking ability. Much of his presentation was flat and unemotional, but that doesn't generally bother me (and he wasn't Gore-like). He didn't contradict himself or blatantly flip-flop on anything, and he did a good job staying within the time limit. He dodged a few questions -- such as whether or not our solders in Iraq are dying for nothing -- but didn't seem obvious about it.

As for Jim Lehrer, I didn't like his performance much. He didn't ask any foreign policy questions that didn't relate to the War on Terror (except for the one on Darfur) -- nothing about trade, nothing about AIDS in Africa, nothing about relations with China, nothing about the European Union, nothing about South America, nothing about Mexico, nothing about the WTO or the IMF, nothing about Kerry's Senate record, and so forth. It got to the point where the candidates were just repeating themselves, and Bush even stopped himself once and pointed out that there wasn't much else he could say about North Korea that he hadn't said twice already. Most of the questions were about things Bush has done, and very few were about things that Kerry had ever done, which made it easy to criticise the President. Still, that's part of the territory with being the incumbent.

The rules weren't overly restricting, and everything went smoothly. If anyone ends up benefiting I think it'll be Kerry, because for me at least he exceeded expectations. One of the best debates I've seen.

Update:
I've been trying to figure out why I feel like Kerry had the edge even though I gave Bush a higher score, and I think I've got it. Bush got more points because he scored a few serious blows, whereas Kerry didn't. But Kerry's performance was smoother and more consistent.

I rarely watch CSPAN, but my brother loves it and he's staying with me this week so I caught a bit last night. The thing that really stood out to me was how stupid the callers were and how ill-formed and absurd were many of their points. Maybe there aren't a lot of callers to choose from, or maybe the screeners don't know what they're doing, but the people who call in to talk radio programs generally seem to be quite a bit more knowledgeable and coherent. Then again, many talk radio programs probably have a much larger audience than does CSPAN.

More-conservative-than-me (that is, more reluctant to stick his neck out with a wild prediction) blogger XRLQ is considering a joint resolution to debate the possibility of forming a committee to discuss the merits of joining the Bush Landslide Bandwagon.

In the past, I’ve chided other bloggers for predicting the outcome of the election far too early in the game. Even now, a mere 34 days before Colorado votes to disenfranchise itself and every state elects a challenge-proof slate of electors for Bush or Kerry, a lot could happen. Maybe Kerry will tank tomorrow’s “debate” and come back swinging in the next two. Maybe, but probably not. So I’m going to stick my neck out just a little bit and make a prediction that can go one of two ways: either Kerry takes it away tomorrow, or he’s toast. The only caveat is that we won’t necessarily know the winner immediately after the “debate.” I recently spoke to a well-known pollster, and he said it always takes a few days for perceptions about the “winner” or “loser” of any debate to sink into the public psyche. So I’m giving this French-looking, French-acting, formerly fake Irish American until next Monday to convince the public that we had a debate on Thursday, September 30, 2004, and that he won it. Stay tuned.

But it's so much more fun to make intuitive predictions months in advance!

How can you tell when a Democratic Presidential would-be is doomed and struggling just to protect down-ticket candidates? Matthew Dowd gave three signs, and I'd like to add a fourth: the candidate brings on Jesse Jackson and his "passion for justice".

Rev. Jesse Jackson has joined the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry as senior adviser.

Jackson will serve as a campaign spokesperson by participating in events and rallies in key battleground states to "energize" voters. ...

"For over forty years, Jesse Jackson has brought his commitment to equality, opportunity and progress to our most vulnerable citizens," said Kerry.

"His passion for justice is second to none. John Edwards and I are proud to have him as part of this campaign and we look forward to the weeks ahead as we travel the country together with a message of hope for all Americans," Kerry added.

Mr. Jackson is such a polarizing figure that he can only end up hurting Kerry's chances if he's displayed much publically, but he can be effective in certain select areas to bolster down-ticket Democrats. Supposedly. The thing is, even some blacks are disillusioned with their race's self-proclaimed spokesman.

A group of African-Americans protestors gathered outside the Sheraton hotel in downtown Chicago Monday to protest Jesse Jackson during his 32nd annual Rainbow/PUSH conference.

Protestor Willie Ellis said he wanted to tell America, "Open your eyes: Jesse Jackson is for Jesse Jackson and Jesse Jackson only.

"He stole from the people long enough. It's time the people know the true man Jesse Jackson is. He has rode on black peoples' coattails long enough," Ellis told CNSNews.com. ...

The protestors held signs reading "IRS Do Your Job: Investigate Jesse's Family";
"Jesse if you want to be a leader go and get yourself elected"; and "Jesse: With leaders like you who needs enemies?"

Protestor Harold Davis said Jackson "is a shakedown artist and nobody holds him accountable."

I know Mr. Jackson has a passion for something that starts with a "j", but it isn't "justice".

I can hardly believe the irony, but it appears that despite Kerry's sparse Senate attendance record a couple of the votes he actually did bother to make are now revealing yet another lie. According to Captain's Quarters,

Bandit reports that during that interview three years ago, Kerry stated that he went to Iraq on March 3rd during the signing of the cease-fire agreement that ended the first Gulf War:

"I mean, I was in Safwan. I went there when the signing of the armistice took place at the end of the war."

... Even more remarkably, John Kerry managed to miss no Senate votes during that week. On February 28th, Kerry voted to table an amendment during a roll-call vote. On March 6th, Kerry again managed to make a roll-call vote, this time voting against tabling an amendment by Senator Tom Harkin. It's not impossible for him to have been to Iraq and back, but it seems less likely.

Bandit discovered a March 4th, 1991 Boston Globe article that narrows the timeframe more.

Anyway, the point is that John Kerry appears to have gone to Iraq a couple of weeks after the armistice was signed, but he certainly wasn't there for the event itself.

(HT: Ace.)

Not only is John Kerry too busy to vote in the Senate, he's also too busy to listen to the Prime Minister of Iraq when he visits.

Allawi met President George W. Bush (news - web sites) at the White House earlier Thursday and addressed a rare joint session of the US Congress where he told lawmakers: "We are succeeding in Iraq."

Speaking in Columbus, Ohio, shortly after Allawi's speech, Kerry said the interim Iraqi premier was painting an unrealistically upbeat picture of the situation in his homeland.

I guess he's got better things to do than the job we're paying him for. Fortunately he can still find time for vacations.

Although the headline is deceiving, Senator Kerry insinuates that President Bush will reintroduce the draft if he's re-elected.

Answering a question about the draft that had been posed at a forum with voters, Kerry said: "If George Bush (news - web sites) were to be re-elected, given the way he has gone about this war and given his avoidance of responsibility in North Korea (news - web sites) and Iran and other places, is it possible? I can't tell you."

Well I can tell you, because Defense Secretary Rumsfeld specifically addressed the draft notion in April.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday dismissed the notion of reinstating the military draft, saying that the Pentagon, if needed, can dig deeper into Reserve and National Guard forces to relieve troops deployed in the war on terrorism.

"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Mr. Rumsfeld told a Washington gathering of members of the Newspaper Association of America, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Associated Press.

If anyone has been floating draft ideas, it's the Democrats.

Democrats in both chambers — Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina — have introduced bills calling for the reinstatement of the draft.

Mr. Rangel, who strongly opposed the Iraq war, said during the months leading up to it that it was apparent that "disproportionate numbers of the poor and members of minority groups compose the enlisted ranks of the military."

"If our great country becomes involved in an all-out war, the sacrifice must be shared," he said in December 2002, during the runup to the war to oust Saddam Hussein.

Blah blah blah. Is it even worth dissecting the things Kerry says? It's so trivially easy to catch him fear-mongering and flip-flopping that it's to the point where I just assume that everything he says is basically the exact opposite of the truth.

What's more, he apparently can't to simple math.

His voice scratchy and breaking from a cold, Kerry called the president's proposal to give workers partly private Social Security (news - web sites) accounts a windfall for financial companies and one that will cut benefits for senior citizens.

"He's driving seniors right out of the middle class," Kerry said in a battleground state rich with voters keenly watching the candidates talk about two pillars of retirement, Social Security and Medicare.

"I will never privatize Social Security, ever," Kerry said, repeating promises not to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.

Well, that's impossible; according to Alan Greenspan and assorted experts our social security program is doomed.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned yesterday of a generational time bomb that will go off once millions of baby boommers retire and tax the Social Security and Medicare systems beyond their capacity.

Greenspan, a man who normally speaks in deliberate gobbledygook to calm markets, instead used blunt language about ``increasingly stark choices'' facing Americans on how to pay for boomers' benefits after they finish working and start retiring in huge numbers in coming years.

Experts said even the latest remarks from the Fed chairman were muted compared with the grim reality of the situation.

``It's much worse than what (Greenspan) is saying,'' said Laurence J. Kotlikoff, chairman of Boston University's economics department and co-author of the new book ``The Coming Generational Storm.''

Lawmakers better get their act together, Kotlikoff said. ``The country is already bankrupt. We can't wait 10 years to act.''

Stopping short of proposing specific ideas on how to plug looming Social Security and Medicare deficits, Greenspan did say time is running out ``to recalibrate our public programs.''

``If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful,'' Greenspan told a central bank conference in Wyoming.

That particular article then echos some points I made in my long-ago post about responsibility.

Kotlikoff warned of possible generational resentment among the young - a resentment that appeared here already yesterday.

``I'm not going to be retired for many years, and I'm giving my money to some little old crazy person,'' bemoaned Desirea Moore, 19, of Dorchester. Moore, who works for a local insurance company, said she has about $30 to $40 a week deducted for Social Security from her paycheck each week.

``I hope when we retire we get a big check too,'' she added.

``It kind of stinks for anyone who's not in that generation,'' said Tim Jacques, 36, a North Andover resident who works at a Boston financial firm. ``We're going to be paying into the system all our working years and not getting any benefit from it. I'm certainly not too happy about it.''

Me neither. Yet another reason to avoid John Kerry.

Update:
And a few hours later Instapundit makes the same connection. Not that I'm dissing Glenn -- I just want more attention for myself!

It looks like there are going to be a lot of rules for this year's Presidential debates, and that's fine with me. Does it decrease the spontaneity? Sure. Does it decrease the chance of that the candidates will whip it out? Yeah -- that provision was specifically requested by the Democrats. So the debates won't be as exciting as they could be, but I guess that doesn't really bother me. In undirected debates there are innumerable opportunities for the participants to play games and manipulate the process, and adding rules to prevent abuses seems like a good idea.

What I would like to see, however, is a format that allows the candidates to speak directly to each other rather than just to the audience. I'd like the debates to be more confrontational on the issues, and I'd like the rules to prevent games with the process.

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV, and unless I'm mistaken it's illegal for political candidates to take contributions from minors. According to section 318 of the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002":

Title III of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), as amended by section 101, is further amended by adding at the end the following new section:

"PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY MINORS

"SEC. 324. An individual who is 17 years old or younger shall not make a contribution to a candidate or a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party.".

So did Senator Kerry admit to breaking the law on "Live With Regis and Kelly"?

Kerry campaign donors apparently come in all sizes. He told Philbin and Ripa that a woman in New York gave him $385 that her 8-year-old son had raised selling homemade campaign buttons, and a 6-year-old in Philadelphia handed over a plastic container with $685 he had earned selling homemade campaign bracelets.

Sounds illegal to me.

Update:
Or not! I'm told that provision was struck down by the Supreme Court last Fall in McConnell v. FEC. See, I told you I wasn't a lawyer. Still, even though my accusation was essentially wrong, shouldn't we focus on the key issue of how John Kerry employs child slave labor to finance his campaign?

Near the end of a CBS/AP story that does a pretty good job of explaining the memogate debacle there's a bit of complaining about President Bush and the full release of military records.

Meanwhile, a federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to find and make public by next week any unreleased files about Mr. Bush's Vietnam-era Air National Guard service to resolve a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Associated Press.

The White House and Defense Department have on several occasions claimed that they had released all the documents only to make additional records available later on.

The only reason a FOIA request can be made for these personnel files is because the President has already waived his privacy rights; personnel files are otherwise exempt from disclosure. I think the public should have full access to the President's military records, and my only question is: when will John Kerry waive his privacy rights and open his full set of military records? Furthermore, the Bushes have opened their financial records as well -- when will the Heinz-Kerrys follow suit? When will the media begin pressuring them to do so?

I don't think John Kerry understands what it means to be president.

While Bush has been campaigning as the best candidate to deter terrorists and protect the nation, Kerry portrayed him as out of touch with the situation in Iraq.

"With all due respect to the president, has he turned on the evening news lately? Does he read the newspapers?" Kerry said. "Does he really know what's happening? Is he talking about the same war that the rest of us are talking about?"

Do you think it's possible that President Bush has better sources of information than CBS and the New York Times?

Meanwhile, House minority leader Nancy "Pansy" Pelosi wants us to surrender to whomever is handy.

"It's clear that this administration didn't know what it was getting into, or else they grossly misrepresented the facts to the American people," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "In either case, staying the course is not an option."

Would it be possible for the Democrats to undermine our foreign relations any more than they're already doing?

Don't worry, Sophia Parlock, I know how you feel.

I'm sure if you were bigger you would have flipped out and chopped off some heads like I did. I hope you remember this day when you're older so you can look back and laugh at how pathetic and desperate the neanderthal-Americans became before they faded into oblivion.

Update:
Then again.... Interesting stuff.

Maybe Jonathan Wilde already had my idea in mind when he wrote about competitive government, but it's not exactly clear, so I'll write it myself. He explains why seperation of powers within the federal government hasn't worked that well and says that the federal/state split has been the far more important division. I agree with him -- alas, the system has nearly fallen apart. The bolding below is my own, and highlights what I believe to be the key proposal (and perhaps the next evolutionary step in human government).

In contrast to Federal legislation, a law made by the state of Virginia mostly only affects Virginians. Similarly, a law made by the city of Richmond, VA mostly only affects Richmonders. Without the power of a higher level government to countermand it, the narrower the geographic monopoly, the fewer people the law affects. If the costs of relocation are insignificant and individuals can costlessly move from one locality to another, then law becomes a private good. It only affects those people who choose to live in a particular legal jurisdiction. They capture the entire benefit of moving to that particular location and suffer nearly all the costs of choosing poorly. Similarly, those states capture the total benefit of attracting people to live there and suffer the consequences of people moving to another state. Highly distributed monopolistic governments in a world of costless switching results in law as a private good. The effects of such law are not borne by everyone, only those who choose it and provide it.

If instead of moving geographically, the costs of switching were made nearly zero by making living under a different government as simple as picking up a telephone or clicking a mouse, then specific laws would only affect those people who chose a particular government. In such a situation, good law would be a private good and bad law would be an undersupplied public good. Aggression would become expensive as it would be much harder to capture a monopoly of the market for law. It would be much more difficult for governments to grow and tyrannize their citizens because the costs of that tyranny would have to be paid for by their subscribers who could easily “move” to another government rather than be an unwilling source of funding.

No longer would voters be able to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. No longer would special interests be able to narrowly benefit themselves at costs borne by the rest of us. No longer would there be a tendency for governments to grow with each passing year. Currently, fighting the growth of monopolistic governments is an uphill battle. It is only the American culture of liberty that kept the US government from becoming truly despotic during the last century as governments in the rest of the world slaughtered their own citizens in record numbers. With polycentric law, libertarians have both culture and economics on their side.

I wish Mr. Wilde had written about the idea more directly, but it appears that he's suggesting that multiple governments with identical powers could operate within the same geographical area, and that residents could decide which government they would belong to, which laws they would be subject to, and which bureaucracy would receive their tax dollars. Whether or not that's exactly what he intended to write, I think it's a great idea, and I've thought about it before and tried to determine how exactly such a system could work.

There are two primary obstacles I can forsee. The first is obvious: how would a nation with multiple (say, three) governments conduct foreign relations? Interestingly, the new Iraqi executive branch is set up with a similar difficulty in having to represent three distinct racial groups: the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds. Perhaps a trinary country could have a single executive council composed of an executive from each government. The executive council could vote based on the population in each of the three governments, sort of like a mini-parliamentary system. For example, executives representing more than 50% of the population would be required to ratify a treaty, and before any executive could do so his respective Senate would also have to consent (using an example based on the present American structure). This could certainly be complex, but it might be workable. (Funding diplomacy and the military might be tricky.)

The second problem would be dealing with internal conflict between persons who belonged to different governments. Which laws would govern the dispute? What if one of the governments allowed, say, murder, and one of its citizens kills a citizen of a government which prohibited murder? It could get confusing, but is there any reason why the various governments couldn't set up "extradition" treaties among themselves, if they desired? But what if the murder-is-ok government didn't want to enter into such a treaty? Then I suppose you'd eventually get open warfare, but I doubt it would come to that.

Anyway, it's a mostly fanciful idea; polycentric government sounds too complicated for most people to want to deal with, and probably too complicated to be stable. If such a system were instituted I imagine that the multiple governments would be unified by treaty rather quickly and that the walls would break down, just as they have between the states and the federal government.

Pigs apparently do fly, though Congress anyway. This article is an excellent reminder of how our legislators use our own money to buy us off. Note that it's Republicans doing the using budget appropriations as a stick in this case, but Democrats did the exact same thing when they were in power. The end result is that no one is willing to challenge anyone else's pork because they can't risk failing to bring home the bacon to their own district.

Many House Democrats are expected to vote for the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill today to secure the earmarks they were denied last year as punishment for voting “no.”

They say they are only voting for the bill because of a “whispering campaign” of intimidation that special projects for their districts — for schools, sewers and the like — would be stripped from the bill in conference if they vote against it.

Republicans scoff at the idea that it’s a whispering campaign, saying its an explicit threat and a political reality. ...

Republicans say they are merely following a time-honored appropriations tradition that rewards lawmakers for supporting appropriations bills and punishes those who do not — regardless of party affiliation.

But they clearly relish the prospect of receiving significant support from Democrats for a bill that has only a 2 percent overall spending increase in an election year.

Democrats said they opposed last year’s package, which had a 4 percent increase, because of funding shortfalls.

Actually, that's a pretty noble goal. If only it were minus 2%.

“It would be foolish to say that last year’s precedent wasn’t weighing on members’ minds,” said Hoyer, who also deplored last year’s bill for denying the roughly 130 million Americans who are represented by Democrats in Congress from receiving their share of the federal pie.

Argh! The whole "federal pie" was taken from us in the first place! Just stop taking it and you won't have to argue about how to redistribute it!

Meanwhile, non-appropriating Republicans maintained that the same rules applied to them.

“I don’t think it’s right for people to take a tough vote and not to get anything in return,” said Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), “or to vote against it and then take credit back home. That’s a little disingenuous.”

Do you see how they view our money? It's just a tool they use to get re-elected. Disgusting.

See my earlier post on the Electoral College for an understanding of why it's mathematically impossible for a Constitutional amendment that would institute a direct popular vote for the Presidency to ever be ratified.

The Wall Street Journal has another good reason why eliminating the Electoral College would be a bad idea.

Direct popular election would also vastly increase the risk of corruption and electoral disputes. With every vote competing directly against every other vote, dishonest politicians everywhere would have an incentive to engage in fraud on behalf of their parties. And a close race would make the 2000 Florida brouhaha look like a kerfuffle. Every one of the nation's 3,066 counties could expect to be overrun by lawyers demanding recounts.

Short of a Constitutional Convention, the Electoral College isn't going anywhere, so I suggest you get used to it.

Susan Estrich -- Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign manager in 1988 -- has some ideas for how Senator Kerry's campaign can be meaner to President Bush, but I don't think they'd be that effective.

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up? (Bush's Texas record has been sealed. Now why would that be? Who seals a perfect driving record?)

I'm pretty sure that's pure speculation. As far as I know Bush had one DUI, and that came out in the last election. I don't think this sort of revelation would hit as hard the second time around, particularly since the President has been dry for quite a while.

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips.

That's a reasonable question I suppose, but generally a VP can only help a ticket, not hurt it. Cheney's two DUIs were in the early 1960s, when the eventual VP was ages 21 and 22. Two plus one equals three, not four or five. Also, the difference between Kerry's Vietnam/Cambodia problem and the President's DUI problem is that Bush has stopped drinking and renounced his former lifestyle whereas Kerry has made his stories about his military service the centerpiece of his campaign.

It has been said that in the worst of times, Kissinger gave orders to the military not to obey Nixon if he ordered a first strike. What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

Right, that would certainly be a first.

The rest of her ideas are even less substantial.

Or maybe it will be Texas National Guardsmen for Truth, who can explain exactly what George W. Bush was doing while John Kerry was putting his life on the line. So far, all W. can do is come up with dental records to prove that he met his obligations.

All he can do is prove he met his obligations? Well gosh, that's incriminating. This attack is pretty stale by now, and the Democrats have hardly been "too nice" to drag it out over and over.

Or could it be George Bush's Former Female Friends for Truth. A forthcoming book by Kitty Kelly raises questions about whether the president has practiced what he preaches on the issue of abortion.

I'd love to hear some stories from the girlfriends John Kerry had in the 1980s before he even bothered to divorce his first wife.

Are you shocked? Not fair? Who said anything about fair? Remember President Dukakis? He was very fair. Now he teaches at Northeastern University.

Who? I remember a Governor Dukakis.

The arrogant little Republican boys who have been strutting around New York this week, claiming that they have this one won, would do well to take a step back. It could be a long and ugly road to November.

Oh brother. "Little Republican boys"? Gee, that's so demeaning. Last I checked there are plenty of "little Republican girls" who support the President as well, but maybe Ms. Estrich doesn't think they're important?

It must be sad and frustrating to constantly fall onto the wrong side of history, but throwing a temper tantrum isn't going to make it better.

Apparently the "Battle Over Women in Combat Rages On", but in reality there is no possible way for women to serve in frontline combat positions.

And while women now serve on combat ships, fly combat missions and conduct door-to-door searches through dangerous Iraqi neighborhoods, limits remain. They're still restricted from infantry units, armor and field artillery companies in wartime.

And for good reason. The primary purpose of the military is to kill people and break things and efficiently as possible, and women simply are not as capable as men are. Furthermore, frontline troops often live in dirt and grime for months at a time without showers or good hygiene, something that would be impossible for women.

There's no right to serve in the military. Neither you nor I has a right to join the armed forces, regardless of our gender, religion, race, height, strength, intelligence, wealth, or any other factor. Every other consideration must be subsumed to the single overriding mission of the military -- to kill people and break things. Equality is irrelevant.

In an earlier post on this topic I pointed to some statistics that show that women have nearly 750% more injuries and accidents than men do in combat training. Furthermore, the social and biological factors of having women in combat could be very hard to deal with.

The issue of violence against women was crystallized when former prisoners of war appeared before the Commission, including one of the two women captured during Operation Desert Storm. Testimony about the indecent assault on one of the women drew further attention to POW training programs already in place that "desensitize" male POWs to the brutalization of women with whom they may be held captive. An interview with trainers at the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training center at Fairchild Air Force Base uncovered a logical but disturbing consequence of assigning women to combat:

"If a policy change is made, and women are allowed into combat positions, there must be a concerted effort to educate the American public on the increased likelihood that women will be raped, will come home in bodybags, and will be exploited. The consequence of not undertaking such a program would be large-scale disillusionment with the military should the United States get in a protracted military engagement."

Maybe I'm a just a male chauvinist pig, but I don't particularly want to see that type of thing. Regardless of training, male soldiers will not see the women they serve with as "just one of the guys", and will inevitably take extra precautions to try and prevent their death or capture. This may lead to circumstances where a commander does not surrender when he otherwise would, for instance, or vice versa. Women may not understand this fact or like it (and some men may argue against it for PC reasons) but it's biological and not merely cultural.

I don't think Professor Bainbridge is quite right in claiming that " The era of small government conservatism is over." (Nor are Donald Sensing and others.) Instead, what I think we're going to see is a fundamental realignment of the two political parties, a process that will be much more rapid if the Democrats manage to get annihilated in November. As I wrote over a year ago (inspired by a similar post by Robin Goodfellow):

The point is that eventually the population will get tired of hearing the debates that the parties want to have, and will dump the parties altogether. For example, both parties are strongly behind the "War on Drugs", but a good portion of the population (maybe not quite a majority) thinks that this so-called war is a sham and a waste of money. Another example is social security... everyone knows it's not sustainable, but neither party has the guts to actually face the problem.

So, what's going to happen? I like Robin's conclusion and basically agree that the parties will re-form into a basically libertarian party and a basically statist party. The real question is, which goes which direction?

A sizable portion of the population -- particularly among the youth -- still wants a small, limited government. I think it's a mistake ti discount that and conclude that neither party will attempt to give it to them. My perception is that libertarian ideas are on the rise.

Also, I wish I could have found a way to use the word "basically" a few more times.

Update:
Francis W. Porretto has more thoughts on the matter, pointing out that no single party is large enough for everyone, no matter what "Big Tent" approach the Republicans are taking this year.

There’s also this: Success breeds its own competition. Electoral success is no exception. There are no strategies or tactics available to the Republicans that are not available to the Democrats as well. If the GOP somehow avoided fissioning due to the “Big Tent,” they would still be vulnerable to the Democrats’ fervent attempts to “steal their voters back.” There is no reason to believe, given the number and magnitude of the differences among Americans on substantial puiblic-policy issues, that the Democrats would not rise from ignominy and become competitive once again.

Excellent, and as I've said before, I look forward to a day when our country has two parties that both make compelling arguments for my vote.

Lileks apparently live-blogged Arnold's speech last night and didn't appreciate it as much as I did. He's amazed that Arnold actually mentioned that he became a republican because of Richard Nixon:

I finally arrived here in 1968.I had empty pockets, but I was full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism which is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes, and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.

I said to my friend, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican!"

Now, I realize that Nixon isn't anyone's favorite president, and I'm not a huge fan, but Nixon was who was running for president in 1968 when Arnold came here, so that's who he saw on TV. Fine. Actually, when I heard these paragraphs on the radio as I was driving home I was really impressed with the delivery, and the "Then I am a Republican!" line was pretty powerful.

Lileks has a well-delivered line of his own in his piece:

Now the line about trusting the US more than the UN. Raucous applause. Chants of USA, which will strike Europeans as the modern-day sound of a Nuremberg rally. Well, they’d know.

I need to be more pithy and subtle, but I'm always afraid people won't get the jokes if I don't provide a diagram. Ah well. James Lileks is one of the best writers I've ever come across.