6 April 2008, a Sunday

Not much going on this early on Sunday morning.  Another one of Obama's boys spouted off, I see...

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, was not present at the fund-raising event when Mr. Schultz, who has described himself as a “gun-totin’, red meat-eatin’ lefty,” made his remarks.

Funny how often Obama isn't in his pew when the remarks are made, huh?

And, with more Liberal Logic on display, the man who called McCain a warmonger, describes himself a gun-totin', red meat-eatin' lefty!  Yeah, that makes sense.  Apparently his guns are only for show, perhaps to make himself feel like a real he-man.

What's that?  He will only use them for self-defense?  Does he expect to be attacked, then?  Hmmm...I wonder what his he-man cowboy rules of self-defense are.  Does the bad guy wear a black hat for easy identification, and must he be allowed to draw first, after which you are able to defend yourself by drawing faster than he can because your heart is pure?

I don't know, sometimes it seems to me like everybody's logic baffles me.  Like this new report coming out on Iraq:

"Reductions in troop levels will likely result in some degree of chaos and violence no matter what," the report warns. "The decentralized, fragmented political dynamic in Iraq cannot be reversed." Creation of a strong central government that can take on security is unlikely to happen in the time left for the current expanded U.S. military presence.

The second option is unconditional redeployment of all U.S. forces in Iraq, possibly beginning in January and completed by 2011. At the same time, however, Washington would build an "enhanced" military presence in the region and stronger regional alliances, while providing political support for the Baghdad government.

Let me try to understand.  Reductions in troop levels are going to result in some degree of chaos and violence, no matter what.  So, if we "redeploy" U.S. forces such that all of them will be gone by 2011, this is not going to result in even MORE chaos and violence?  Apparently not.

What, pray tell, is an "enhanced" military presence, and precisely where, in the region, will it be stationed with Iraq in the hands of either al-Qaeda or Iran?  We have learned that this will be the case because the group says the central government will not be able to protect itself yet.

Look, if you want an enhanced military presence in the region, keep the one that you have there now.  Since the report says very clearly that things will get worse when we leave, how will leaving help our enhanced military presence?

Here's an interesting item which compares post-WWII Europe with Iraq in ways some have forgotten:

There was plenty of looting and disorder when U.S. forces entered Germany. In fact, it was on a scale far greater than anticipated or now remembered, most of it due to the rage that millions of slave laborers who'd been deported to Germany from Nazi-occupied countries, chiefly Poland and the Soviet Union, vented on their captors upon liberation.

As in Baghdad five years ago, the disorder also engulfed cultural institutions. When U.S. forces entered Munich, Hitler's spiritual home and the seat of Nazi Party headquarters, scores of works of art simply disappeared from museums and art galleries. For two or three days, the northern city of Bremen was "probably among the most debauched places on the face of God's earth," wrote one witness of the frantic looting that took place after Allied soldiers entered its bomb-shattered streets.

No television to flash the scenes back to Americans at home, of course.  And our press was on our side, back then.

Critics of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq point to the decisions by L. Paul Bremer, Garner's replacement, to dismiss Baathists from public office and to dissolve the Iraqi army as critical and disastrous turning points that created a vast legion of the unemployed and disaffected. Yet in 1945, the Allies implemented a similarly draconian policy in Germany. They dissolved the Nazi Party, carried out a thorough purge of Nazis in public office and even abolished the ancient state of Prussia, which they believed was at the root of German militarism. Millions of Wehrmacht soldiers languished in prisoner-of-war camps while their families struggled to survive.

I still think that disbanding the Iraqi army...which melted away, anyhow...was essential.  They're having a difficult enough time rebuilding it into a balanced multi-ethnic military force as it is, and it definitely was a Sunni Baathist entity under Saddam.  Can't you remember how Saddam repeatedly purged his officer corps of anyone who showed even the faintest signs of disloyalty to him, personally? 

Some seem to think that it should have been easy to purge the officer corps while retaining the army, but that's not how armies work.  The army would have fragmented into a large number of armed militias of mostly disaffected Sunni, unwilling to yield power to the more-numerous but unarmed Shia. 

Rebuilding a nation is possible. But even in the best of circumstances, it takes effort, time, patience and pragmatism. As 1945 confirms, liberation from a dictator in itself offers no easy path to peace or democracy. Battlefield victory is the easy bit. Building peace is a constant struggle -- and it's a matter of years, not weeks.

Unfortunately, since WWII America has become a "now generation" nation desirous of instant success without the need for hard work.  Even more unfortunately, our enemies take the long view.  Historically, those who took the long view have been the winners.

Great line by George Will:

With the command-and-control propensity of contemporary liberalism, Clinton predictably advocates a policy that has a record, running from Roman times to the present, that is unblemished by success. It is the policy of price controls: Her proposed five-year freeze on interest rates would be a control on the price of money.

One of the things that keeps bothering me about this whole housing crisis was why so many loans were foreclosed?  After all, even a loan which is only minimally-performing is better than no loan at all and the money gone, evaporated.  And vacant houses for security are much worse to own than houses still occupied by people who want to live in them but can't afford to. 

I guess the problem is all caused by the packaging of loans to be sold as securities to non-lenders, the removal of the link between borrower and lender.  It really isn't wise to foreclose until all alternatives have been exhausted and no other choice remains.

After all, there probably isn't anyone in the real estate or lending business who doesn't know that home prices are cyclical, and that downturns are followed by upturns.  A loan foreclosed is money lost forever, unless the home value is adequate to cover the loan, but the argument has been that it is not or else the homeowner would not have left.  Smart lenders would have voluntarily foregone raising the interest rates, taking a small "loss" rather than provoking a major one.

Do whatever is necessary to keep the borrower in the property and the loan performing even if imperfectly, waiting patiently for the next up-turn. 

Write of a few dollars, not billions.

McCain's only solecism is his loopy idea that mortgage lenders should make a "response" that is "similar" to General Motors' policy of interest-free financing immediately after Sept. 11. Patting himself on the back, as is his wont, McCain said he is too honorable to "play election-year politics" or "allow dogma to override common sense." Then he cast this issue as he casts too many issues, as a matter of patriotism, saying of lenders: "They've been asking the government to help them out. I'm now calling on them to help their customers and their nation out."

Good grief. Where to begin? GM initiated that policy for a corporation's best reason -- business rationality. The policy's purpose was to shed inventory, not make a patriotic gesture with shareholders' money or in response to political pressure.

McCain practices the politics of honor: He thinks that whatever his instincts tell him is honorable must be so and that those who think otherwise are dishonorable. This makes him difficult to deal with but does no other harm, as long as it is kept separate from governing.

 As a general matter, I write my comments as I read the item, not reading ahead, so this is the first I knew McCain had promoted any interest-free loan period.  George is still struggling over the fact that McCain isn't conservative enough to suit him, so he must perforce call it loopy even though he admits that when GM did it, it was a matter of business rationality.

Yes, it is...but if it also helps the nation as a whole, then what's the problem with mentioning that?  After all, the part of America which has been affected by the housing crisis is not only the small percentage of homeowners who have been foreclosed upon.  A lender who took only principal payments, losing the interest, would be better off than a lender who lost the principal as well.

And if the problem was really caused by the ARMs adjusting upward, then don't do that.  Some interest is better than no interest, and at least the principal remains intact.

And don't give me any story about borrowers being "upside down", owing more than their home was worth, as their reason for walking away.  Some of them started out that way, for one thing.  And when you move into an apartment or a rental house, your equity value is likewise zero, and you'll pay and pay for years without advancing an inch, but that's not a reason for moving out.

The whole crisis never did make that much sense to me.

As for Will's sniping at McCain's sense of honor, I can hardly believe that he would prefer to be led by someone who did NOT think his instincts were honorable. 

And surely it would require Liberal Logic for McCain to believe his instructs were honorable and then confront someone who argues the opposite without coming to the same conclusion.  I suppose we're supposed to mouth the platitude that "honorable men can disagree", never arriving at any conclusion or determining what the meaning of "is" is, but I find that notion strange coming out of George Will.

After all, liberals are the people who find "right" and "wrong" to be much too harsh, preferring 365 shades of gray, instead.  Liberals are people who can somehow find "honor" in retreat and defeat, something McCain will never understand, nor would I want him to!

And it's hard to argue with this:

Mr. McCain this week has claimed to be the most bipartisan candidate in the race, based on his years of working with Democrats, also providing, though never explicitly asserting, a contrast to the increasingly nasty fight between Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

Among the list of bipartisan efforts are proposing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, overhauling campaign-finance laws and trying to cap U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions — all stances that have alienated him at times from his own party.

But Mr. McCain said there was virtue in bipartisanship, adding that those engaged in the political debate "deserve more than tolerance from one another, we deserve each other's respect."

Obama may find a stronger opponent in McCain than he thought, if this sort of thing continues after one of his supporters' "warmonger" crack:

Jamie Selzler, head of the North Dakota Democratic Party, said he is "not going to criticize Ed Schultz."

"He gave a rousing speech that got the group excited, and we appreciated that he did that," Mr. Selzler said.

The tiff reversed the roles from February, when Mr. McCain quickly disavowed a warm-up rally introduction given by conservative talk-radio host Bill Cunningham, who called the Illinois senator a "hack, Chicago-style" politician and repeatedly referred to him by his full name — Barack Hussein Obama.

I'd say the score right now is 2-0 for McCain on civility of discourse, supposedly an Obama strong suit.

If Obama doesn't watch out, he'll find taking the high moral ground a lot harder against McCain than it was the likes of Hillary Clinton.

Trying too hard to stick Hillary?  Taken from NRO:

From ABCNews.com:

For the second time in recent days, Sen. Hillary Clinton has had to drop a story from her stump speech after being challenged on its accuracy.

For the past month, the New York senator liked to tell the tale of a pregnant woman who was denied health care from an Ohio hospital because she did not have $100 the hospital demanded to treat her. After being turned away, the woman was brought back to the hospital days later with severe complications. She had to be rushed to another facility for advanced treatment, but it was too late. Both the woman and the baby died, Clinton told her audiences.

For Clinton, the story was an example of how everyone should have universal healthcare. It is a powerful tale and always drew gasps from the audience.

The hospital, which was never named in Clinton's speeches, objected this weekend, saying it wasn't true and demanded that Clinton stop telling it.

So why does the hospital think they're the ones she's talking about, if it didn't happen at their place?  There must be something about the story that they recognize or else they'd think she meant someone else all along.

Defining Dr. King Down?   [Victor Davis Hanson]

It is very odd to see a number of recent essays that attempt to redefine the healer Dr. King as a radical, as part of a defense of the divider Rev. Wright. Instead of condemning the Wright rhetoric, the trope seems to be that he is within the mainstream of political discourse since we don't realize how fiery and radical MLK really was.

The methodology is odd: the body of Rev. Wright's work supposedly proves than he is not as radical as we suppose from the "snippets"—while the snippets of MLK's speeches prove that he is more radical than we otherwise think from the aggregate body of his work. But to paraphrase Lloyd Bensten, "America knew Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rev. Wright is no Martin Luther King, Jr."

I admit that I wondered about that, too.  Make MLK look worse in order to make Wright look better?

Then there's Mark Steyn...how does he do it so well?

Three o’clock in the morning

And it looks like it’s gonna be another sleepless night . . .

That’s Crystal Gayle from the opening of her hit song, “Talking In Your Sleep,” Number One on the Billboard Country charts in 1978. No, hang on a minute, it’s Hillary Clinton’s new campaign theme.

In Crystal’s case, her sleepless night was caused by her husband lying next to her talking in his sleep, moaning in ecstasy and whispering sweet nothings to some other gal. But Hillary learned to snore through that a long time ago.

Not nice, but funny.  And this:

Hill calculated that, given the Dems’ deference to identity politics, her gender would give her enough novelty to sail through. But Obama trumped that, and now it’s eternally three in the morning and the phone doesn’t stop not ringing. She’s like Frank Sinatra in Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer’s all-time great saloon song:

It’s quarter to three
There’s no one in the place except you and me . . .

Superdelegate Jon Corzine, Governor of New Jersey and an early supporter of Hillary, now says that if she doesn’t win the popular vote he’ll switch to Obama. Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont says she needs to throw in the towel for the good of the party.

Well, that’s how it goes
And Joe, I know you’re getting anxious to close . . .

They’re locking up the joint, and no matter how many nickels she drops in the jukebox it won’t play “Hail To The Chief.”