The K.F. Stone Weekly

There's Something About Iowa

   

    In just a couple of days, America's "formal" presidential election season begins in a big way with the Iowa Caucus.  If I had a dollar for everyone who has asked me, "what's a caucus and how does it differ from a primary?", I'd be able to retire. 
   It is therefore with pleasure that I offer a baker's dozen-worth of questions-and-answers on what's about to happen in the Hawkeye State. 

    PLEASE NOTE THAT WHAT FOLLOWS IS TAKEN VERBATIM FROM AN ARTICLE THAT RECENTLY APPEARED ON THE cqpolitics.com  website of CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY:

                                  http://www.cqpolitics.com

1. So what is a presidential precinct caucus, anyway?

    A caucus is essentially a meeting of local political party activists who convene to express their candidate preferences. As is the case in most caucus states, Iowa’s precinct meetings start a multi-tiered process that will culminate at the state party conventions with the final selection and allocation of the state’s delegates to the national Democratic and Republican Party conventions.

2. How does a caucus differ from a primary election?

    Unlike a caucus, a primary is carried out in a virtually identical manner to a general election contest, with participants going to polling place or, depending on state election procedures, voting at home for their preferred candidates. A primary election attracts a broader swath of the electorate, in part because it requires a shorter time commitment. A caucus takes longer to conduct and tends to attract dedicated party activists.

3. It seems as though the Iowa caucuses are always the first event of the presidential nomination season. Why is that?  

   The precinct caucuses have been the kickoff presidential nominating event since 1972, when the Democratic Party scheduled them for Jan. 24. Since 1976, Democrats and Republicans have held their caucuses on the same date. Until that era,  Iowa’s caucuses had been extremely low-profile and weren’t the media circus they are today. But the 1972 and 1976 Democratic contests helped turn the precinct caucuses into a major force in presidential selection: the stronger-than-expected performance by South Dakota Sen. George McGovern in the first of those events and by former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter in the latter helped boost both to the party’s nomination, which in turn turned future Iowa precinct events into media magnets. Iowa officials since have zealously guarded their state’s tradition as the host of the kickoff nomination contest.

4. Where are these caucuses held?

    In a wide variety of locations such as schools, churches, community centers, public libraries and even private homes. Democrats and Republicans will hold caucuses in each of Iowa’s nearly 1,800 precincts; in some places, both party’s caucuses will be held in the same locations.

5. How many people show up to caucus?

It depends on a contest’s competitiveness, but usually about 10 to 20 percent of a party’s voters will participate in the caucuses. About 124,000 people participated in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucuses.  [There were no Republican contests that year because President Bush was unopposed for renomination.]

6. Who can participate in a precinct caucus?

     Any Iowa  resident can participate, provided he or she is 18 years of age or will be by November 4, 2008, the date of the general election.

   To participate in a party’s caucus, a voter must have previously registered as a member of that party or chooses to register with the party on caucus night. Any prospective participant must show up at the caucus site by 7 p.m. central time, when the caucus begins.

7. Isn’t Jan. 3 awfully early to hold precinct caucuses?

      Yes, it’s by far the earliest date for the Iowa caucuses -- so early in fact, that if occurs just two days after New Year's Day.  This could be a problem for lots of football fans who may want to watch the Orange Bowl game between Virginia Tech and Kansas.  This early date is a result of the accelerated "front loading" of the presidential  nominating schedule: the 2008 Iowa caucuses were originally penciled in for Monday, January 14.  They shifted to the earlier date because other states moved up their  nominating events  and impinged on Iowa's first-in-the-nation status.  Previously, the Iowa caucuses had been held no earlier than January 19, the date on which they were held in both 1976 and 2004. 

8. So what exactly will happen on the evening of Jan. 3?

    Republican and Democrats voters will gather that evening at their respective precinct caucus locations, ostensibly to elect delegates to the county conventions in March and to conduct other party business.

   The caucus process is fairly simple for the Republicans, who will cast a nonbinding straw vote for their preferred candidate before moving on to other party business.

   The Democratic process is more complex. Caucus attendees will divide up into candidate preference groups. Generally speaking, a preference group needs to have 15 percent of caucus attendees to be considered “viable” — meaning that the group is eligible to elect delegates to a county convention. So a candidate at a precinct caucus that has 100 attendees would need the support of 15 people to form a viable candidate preference group.

    After caucus attendees divide up into preference groups, those who are in non-viable groups or are not committed to any candidate are allowed time to realign with other candidates’ groups. After this period of realignment, county convention delegates are allocated among the candidate preference groups, and the results are then phoned in to the state Democratic Party.

9. What can you tell me about the results that are reported?

 You’ll see a raw vote total for the Republicans. In the 2000 Republican caucus, for example, George W. Bush received about 36,000 of the approximately 89,000 votes that were cast in the straw poll -- 41%  of the total. Bush out-polled publisher Steve Forbes [30%], former ambassador Alan Keyes [14%], and conservative political activist Gary Bauer [9%]. Arizona Senator John McCain, who bid for the 2000 nomination but did not campaign in the  Iowa caucuses that year, received 5%.

        The Democrats report their caucus results in terms of each candidate’s projected delegate strength at the state convention in June — using a calculation known as State Delegate Equivalents [SDE]. There’s a reason for this. The January 3 precinct caucuses will elect delegates to county conventions that are of different sizes; the county convention in Carroll County, for example, will include 155 delegates who will be elected January 3, while the county convention for Tama County will include 85 delegates who will be elected January 3.

   The state party weights each county’s delegate allotment to the June state convention based on its raw Democratic vote in the 2004 presidential and 2006 governor’s contests, compared to the statewide Democratic vote. Carroll and Tama will have differently sized county conventions, but they actually have the same delegate allotment [16] at the state convention — which is fixed at 2,500 delegates — because both counties each gave the same cumulative total of votes in 2004 to Democrat John Kerry and in 2006 to Democrat Chet Culver. That complicated scenario explains why the party releases the results as SDEs.

    In the 2004 Democratic caucuses, Kerry’s reported total of 37.6% reflected his anticipated delegate strength at the state Democratic convention. It did not mean that Kerry was supported by 37.6% of all Democratic caucus attendees.

10. If the purpose of the Iowa caucuses is to elect delegates to the county convention, then why do the results of the Iowa precinct caucuses receive so much national attention? 

 Because the media widely interpret the precinct caucuses as an important early test of each candidate’s viability and his or her campaign organization, even though no national convention delegates are selected at the event. The caucuses have become such a media magnet that the intense focus on who won and who lost — or, more accurately, who exceeded expectations and who did not meet them — can help make or break candidates.  And this comes well before the overwhelming majority of primary and caucus voters elsewhere in the nation have had an opportunity to vote or even weigh in about their choices.

11. How often does the winner of the Iowa Precinct caucuses go on to win the nomination?

      Most, but not all of the time. In 2004, John Kerry hurdled to Democratic front-runner status after a late surge in Iowa propelled him to victory.  Eight  days later, Kerry won the  New Hampshire primary; he effectively clinched the Democratic nomination after sweeping the primaries a few weeks later.

    In 2000, George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, won the Republican Iowa caucuses and Vice President Al Gore easily won those on the Democratic side. Bush lost to McCain eight days later in  New Hampshire, where Gore won narrowly. But both Bush and Gore recovered from those subpar showings to easily clinch their parties’ nominations.

   In 1988, Kansas Republican Sen. Bob Dole and Missouri Democratic Rep. Richard A. Gephardt won the Iowa caucuses, but neither won their party's nomination. Dole lost out to George H.W. Bush, the current president’s father, while the Democratic nomination went to Michael S. Dukakis.

12. Can a presidential candidate fare poorly in Iowa and still recover and win the nomination?

 Historical caucus results have spawned a conventional wisdom that there are “three tickets out of Iowa."   In every contested Iowa caucus since 1972, only once has a presidential candidate finished worse than third and then gone on to become his party's presidential candidate.  At that time -- the   1992 Democratic caucuses, when Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton finished fourth was an aberration: Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin was on the ballot and his opponents did not actively challenge his “favorite son” status in his home state.

     Third-place Iowa finishers who went on to win their party’s nomination include Bush in 1988, when he lost to Dole and religious broadcaster Pat Robertson in Iowa but went on the win the nomination and defeat Dukakis in the general election.

     Dukakis also finished third in the  Iowa caucuses.  But in this case, his showing was portrayed as a success.  First-place finisher Gephardt and Illinois Sen. Paul Simon, the runner-up, represented states that border Iowa and faced much higher expectations for success than a candidate from Massachusetts.

    Got all that?  If not, don't worry.  Its taken some of us years just to figure out just where in the heck Iowa is.

    But you've got to admit: there is something about Iowa.

    Let the games begin!

 

 

Why Do Feel I Like Andy Rooney?

  What is a "curmudgeon?"  Well, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, a curmudgeon is "A crusty irascible cantankerous old person full of stubborn ideas."  The American Heritage Dictionary defines curmudgeon as "An ill-tempered person full of resentment and stubborn ideas."

  No one knows the precise etymology of the word, although ye olde Dr. Samuel Johnson, in a moment of puckish delight, tried to pull a fast one by suggesting it came from the French coeur méchant, literally, an "evil heart."  My money backs those who claim that the first syllable of the word -- cur "a dog" -- says it all.
   

In our workaday world, the greatest exemplar of curmudgeonism, to coin an abstraction, would have to be 60 Minutes' Andy Rooney.  I would daresay that few amongst the vast American TV viewing public are not familiar with the curmudgeonly Mr. Rooney.  After all, for more than two decades, Mr. Rooney has spent two or three minutes every Sunday evening railing against something that drives him to distraction -- tattoos, faulty Christmas presents, the cost of groceries, annoying relatives -- you name it.  And although true cognoscenti take his rants with a large dose of salt [he is, at root, an entertainer], for most people, he nonetheless comes off as the Platonic Absolute of -- you guessed it -- the curmudgeon's curmudgeon.

   OK, now that we've finished our excursion into the realm of etymology and spent a couple of sentences on Andy Rooney, why the great interest in grouches, sourpusses, cranks, bears and crosspatches?   And why oh why do I find myself feeling like Andy Rooney's bastard stepson?

    Well, let me tell you.

      
    I woke up today at 7:00, had a cuppa Earl Grey [Harrod's, with extra Lavender] then got down to my morning tasks. One of the first things on my agenda was registering the service contract on the multi-purpose printer I purchased yesterday at Office Depot.  According to the form they provided me, registering online was as simple as 1-2-3.  Just go to their site, answer a few simple questions, provide a few identifying numbers and Voila!  Covered for the next two years.  Or, if I wished, I could do the whole thing simply by calling an 800 number.  As Tom Lehrer sang in the satiric "New Math,"

                                  It's so simple

                                 So very simple

                                That only a child can do it!

 Starting at 9:00, I went online, and hit a snag on the very first e-page; it told me that the phone number -- my home phone number mind you -- was incorrect!  I tried again . . . and again. . . and again.  Temperature rising, I said to myself: Self, you've never claimed to be an Einstein, but you do bloody well know your own home number!

   So, I called the local Office Depot where the printer had been purchased, and asked to speak to the manager.  After waiting for precisely seven-and-one-half minutes, the manager came on the line, listened to my problem, and told me to call the 800 number . . . which I did.

   With waxing systolic, I looked forward to speaking to someone -- anyone -- who could help me complete the simple task of registering the service warrant.  Guess again.  All I got was their #@!%&!! automated, voice-activated system.  The first indignity came with the initial taped request:

 "Please spell your last name, slowly, letter-by-letter."

 S-T-O-N-E

  "We have that as F-P-O-M-E.  If this is correct, please say  Yes; if not, please say No."

   NO!!

 "Please spell your last name, slowly, letter-by-letter."

   ESS-TEE-O-EN-EE

  "We have that as F-P-O-M-G.  If this is correct, please say Yes; if not, please say No."

 God how I loathe these automated voice-activated systems!  I don't mind chatting up some tekki in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Kuala Lumpur; I have no problem dealing with someone named Hassan, Fakhruddin or Datuk.  At least they are real live sentient beings. This automated voice-activated world is something straight out of Dante's Inferno.    

 Almost chucking the phone into the swimming pool, I thought better, hung up, and called back to Office Depot, once again requesting to speak to the manager.  After holding for almost 11 minutes, the line went dead. God Bless Bellsouth. 

   Returning to my computer, I went back online.  This time I decided to type in my phone number sans dashes between the number clusters.  Yureka!  It worked!  So why couldn't they have somewhere written that the 10-digit number should not be written without dashes or ampersands? 

   Because "So simple, so very simple, that only a child can do it . . ."   

   After giving my name, address and phone number -- minus the dashes -- I had to fill in such information as date of purchase, make, model and serial number, etc.  The online screen told me that this last bit of information was to be found "either on your receipt or somewhere on the merchandise purchased."  But where?  The cash register receipt was longer than a Biblical cubit, and the multi-purpose printer contained more numerical series than the entire U.S. Tax Code.

   Diastolic now approaching my 5-digit address, I swallowed hard and put in one of the 12-letter/number series . . . WRONG.   I tried a second . . . WRONG.  Well, that left just one letter/number series, so it had to be the correct one.  I slowly entered the code, sat back and admired my handiwork, and began feeling almost human.  With a dramatic push of the index finger, my printer was about to become covered . . . until

     THE SYSTEM IS EXPERIENCING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.  PLEASE TRY AGAIN LATER.

     It was time for a second . . . and third . . . and fourth cuppa Earl Grey.

 

     We live in a truly amazing world.  One can locate literally thousands of websites dealing with Ornithorhynchus anatinus [the Duck-Billed Platypus], the Elephantine papyri [Jewish manuscripts dating back to the 5th century B.C.E.] or Gombin, Poland [my late father-in-law's birthplace] within less than 3 seconds.  We can hold the world's accumulated wisdom in the palm of a hand and find our way around the wilds of Borneo with a GPS. And yet, it is getting next to impossible to speak with a real live human being on the phone.  To my way of thinking, this is the absolute cruelest, most diabolic form of outsourcing ever invented.

     I'm beginning to understand and feel a lot like Andy Rooney. . .

     Wishing you a Happy, Healthy, and Peaceful secular New Year  from Anna, myself, our family and all the critters . . .

 

    Kurt F. Stone

 

 By the way, I did finally get my printer covered by the two-year warranty.  How I did it is a saga for another time . . .

 

©2007 Kurt F. Stone

There's Good News Tonight!

    Back in the dark days of World War II -- a conflict that -- unbelievably -- took less time than our current mission in Iraq -- radio commentator Gabriel Heatter [1890-1972] used to open up each night's broadcast with the words "There's good news tonight! A troubled man with a host of fears and phobias, Heatter nonetheless felt it his mission to present the American public with a nightly broadcast that accentuated the positive.  Heatter had a well known penchant for stories about heroic dogs -- despite a deep-seated phobia for canines not his own.   

   Despite having a huge audience that made this conflicted man a national icon, Heatter did have his critics; writers and commentators who found his newscasts sickeningly saccharine.  Indeed, one wag composed a particularly lacerating bit of doggerel that went "Disaster has no cheerier greeter/than gleeful, gloating Gabriel Heatter."

 It is with both a consummate love of all dogs and, so far as I know, only one identifiable phobia [reactionophobia -- a fear of reactionaries] that I borrow Heatter's iconic sign-on: THERE'S GOOD NEWS TONIGHT!

   So what's -- or in this case, who's -- the "good news?"

   To be precise, its Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.  For in standing up to both the United States Senate and the Bush Administration, Dodd has -- at least for the nonce -- put the kibosh on granting legal protection to the phone carriers that helped with the National Security Agency's [NSA] eavesdropping program.  As many already know, the Bush Administration has been pushing for immediate passage of legislation to grant immunity to phone companies as part of a broader expansion of the  NSA's wiretapping authorities -- already an egregious encroachment on civil liberties. 

   First a bit of history.

   This past August, Congress hastily approved expanded powers for the NSA in a vote that many Democrats regretted.  That temporary legislation is due to expire on February 1, 2008.  The Administration had hoped that the Senate would pass S. 2248, the "FISA Amendments Act of 2007" -- including the immunity provision -- before the end of the Congressional session, so that an agreement could be worked out with the House.  [Note: the House approved a wiretapping measure of its own last month that did not include immunity.

   Enter Senator Dodd who, returning from snowy clime of Iowa where he is running for President, spent the better part of this past Monday attacking the idea of giving immunity to such national carriers as Verizon and AT&T. [Note: there are currently more than 40 lawsuits pending against these and other major phone companies over their "alleged" cooperation in the eavesdropping program.]

   Because of Senator Dodd's relentless assault -- and his threat to filibuster the measure -- Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] had no choice but to scuttle consideration of S. 2248 until the new Congress convenes in January.  In announcing that time had run out for debating the measure, Senator Reid said, "Democrats are committed to improving our nation's intelligence laws, while protecting Americans' civil liberties . . . We need to take the time necessary to debate a bill that does just that, rather than rushing one through the legislative process."

   Senator Dodd's comments were more directly on point: "Today we have scored a victory  for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy . . . . The president should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecom companies who supported this quest to spy on American citizens."

 Predictably, the White House -- through spokesman Tony Fratto -- was "very disappointed."  "Each day of delay," Fratto said, "brings us closer to reopening  a dangerous intelligence gap that we closed last summer." 

   Shades of the so-called "missile gap" of the late 1950s and early 1960s. 

   Once again, the administration, along with its henchmen and henchwomen on Capitol Hill, has been seeking to eat away at American civil liberties using the astringent of fear.  If one reads between the lines, what the White House is saying is, "Anyone who goes against the entire legislative package -- including retroactive immunity -- will be labeled 'soft on terrorism.'"  One can already hear Limbaugh, Levin, Hannity and Savage calling Senator Dodd "Osama bin Laden's best friend," or descrying "godless liberals who are only too willing to deliver America into the hands of their most murderous enemies." 

   The Senate will take up consideration of S. 2248 when it reconvenes in January.  There are many versions of this bill floating around Capitol Hill, the worst of which comes out of Senator Jay Rockefeller's Committee on Intelligence.  Rockefeller's [D-WV] version is the one that includes retroactive immunity.  What this means is that were the bill to pass, major telecom companies would be held free and faultless tomorrow for what is today a clear violation of federal law.  I thought our federal Constitution specifically banned ex post facto laws -- namely laws that "retroactively change the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of a specific law."  If Senator Rockefeller's immunity clause isn't a prime example of ex post facto, then I'm an All-Pro running back.  And believe me, I'm no all Adrian Peterson.

   Even without the retroactive immunity provision, S. 2248 is a frightening, highly-flawed piece of legislation.  If the Senate will only follow Senator Dodd's lead, they will enact a bill that will:

1. Support individualized warrants and restore real protections against interceptions of communications of American citizens inside the United States.
2. Push for oversight of past illegal surveillance and recognize that oversight can increase accountability without jeopardizing national security and exposing classified documents, and
3. Adopt a reasonable sunset provision and make sure that the next administration is obligated to review the laws and respond to continually voiced concerns regarding government surveillance.

   What all this means is that we, the people, have to get our pens, our phones and our computers ready.  We have to make everyone from Harry Reid to the chap who keeps the snuff boxes filled [yes, they still have snuffboxes in the Senate Cloak Rooms!] know that an America that continues to support warrantless wiretaps without oversight is an America teetering on the abyss of totalitarianism.

   Thank God for Senator Dodd. 

   Even Gabriel Heater would be pleased . . .

 

©2007 Kurt F. Stone

Article VI Clause 3: America's Eleventh Commandment

   According to an adage from humankind's hoary-headed past, one should not engage in public discussion of either politics or religion. Boy, did my parents ever miss the boat on that one. 

   You see, my middle name is Franklin.   About bestowing that name, my parents, Alice and Henry, were in total agreement.  About precisely whom they were honoring -- that, as they say, is another geschichte, another story.

   According to Henry, the name Franklin was in honor and memory of his paternal grandfather, a revered leader of the Jewish community in late 19th, early 20th century Baltimore.  I guess he wanted me to follow in the great man's footsteps.  According to Alice, the name was in honor and memory of the recently deceased FDR.   Perhaps she had visions of her scrawny newborn growing up to become President of the United States.

    Names must have an evocative, motivating power, for in a sense, I have responded to the duality inherent in that middle name: I became a rabbi who has spent the better part of a lifetime working in -- and writing about -- politics.  And of course, I have consistently disobeyed the old saw about not discussing religion or politics in public -- or on the pulpit for that matter.

   I rationalize that its OK, because after all, I'm not running for office.

   The 2008 presidential race is, I'm afraid to say, a horse of a totally different hue.  Questions about Darwinism-versus-Creationism, the infallibility of the Bible and whether Muslims, Mormons or non-believers can gain entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven abound.  Candidates -- especially on the Republican side of the aisle -- feel the dire necessity of putting their various religious creeds, beliefs and practices on public display.  It has gotten to the point that without religious testimony, there is no electoral victory.

    Believe it or not, this is a rather new phenomenon.  For the first 175-180 years of our history, personal religious scruples played a minuscule role in presidential politics.  Why?  Because of Article VI, Clause 3 of our Constitution, which states in part:

   ". . . no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." [sic] 

   Indeed, it is highly unlikely that voters knew what church the various presidents attended or where they stood on issues of doctrinal import.   The wall of separation between church and state, between parochialism  and the presidency was wide and -- for the most part -- immutable.    Oh yes, in the 1800 presidential race John Adams, a Unitarian,  did accuse the Episcopalian-bred Deist Thomas Jefferson of "endeavoring to destroy religion," and even went so far as to call him "the anti-Christ."  And in turn, Jefferson -- who defeated Adams -- retaliated by accusing  Adams of being a "Puritan pope and a religious tyrant."

   This episode, sorry as it may have been, turned out to be the rare exception, definitely not the rule.  One suspects that candidates from "Jemmy" Madison on had a deep-seated respect for Article VI, Clause 3.  One might also suspect that voters were far more interested in what positions the candidates espoused than what pew they occupied.

   Yes, John F. Kennedy did address concerns about his Catholicism back in 1960, and Mitt Romney's father George did talk about his Mormonism once in 1968.  In Kennedy's case, he was seeking to allay fears that he might put the papacy above the presidency.  In the senior Romney's case, he was  specifically addressing the Mormon Church's position on Blacks.

   It all seems like a century ago. 

    In recent years, a growing segment of the American voting public -- spurred by the rise of the Religious Right and so-called  "values voters" -- has made one's personal religious scruple into a matter of public concern.  While millions of people are terrified at the prospect of casting their vote for a candidate who seriously questions Darwinian evolution, many millions would greatly prefer seeing a Creationist in the White House.  And while countless millions are more than willing to cast their vote for a woman, a Black, a Hispanic or a Catholic -- the Democratic lineup -- there are countless millions who would not deign to vote for a Mormon.  I find it intriguing that amongst the six most serious Democratic hopefuls [Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and Richardson] none has ever been divorced.  Contrast this to the five leading Republican contenders [Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee], who account for no less than four divorces.  And yet, which party's candidates are quickest to tout their Christian bona fides?

   To listen to some Republican candidates and strategists, the issues of greatest importance to the American voting public are stem cell research, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and the total outlawing of abortion.  In order to even qualify for the nomination then, Republican candidates must first pass some sort of moral values test.  And in order to do this -- and move even further ahead of the pack -- they must then  reassure one and all that they -- and not their opponents -- are God's favorite candidate.

   I don't know about you, but I am highly offended when Governor Mike Huckabee runs a television spot with the words "Christian Leader" emblazoned on the screen.  I am angry as hell when Mitt Romney has to defend his religion against the charge that it is nothing more than a perverse cult [something which an eye popping 35% of the public believes].   I am dumbfounded when candidates pander by proclaiming that they are all that stands between a Christian nation and the religion of "Godless secularism."   I thought they were running for nomination, not beatification.

   What in the world does this have to do with being an effective president?  In a word: nothing.

   What in the world does this have to do with securing the Republican nomination?  In a word: everything.

   I for one could not care a fig if a presidential candidate believes that Jesus is both God and the son of God.   Its really none of my business whether one goes to Confession, speaks in tongues or eschews bacon ham or shrimp.  And whether or not a candidate believes every single word of the Bible is really beside the point. 

  My question is not about the Bible; its about the Constitution of the United States.

   Years ago, Ronald Reagan promulgated what he called the Republican's "Eleventh Commandment."  To wit, "Thou shalt not speak badly about any fellow Republican."  To my way of thinking he got it wrong.  The Eleventh Commandment should be: "Thou shalt not ignore the Constitution of the  United States."  By making religion such a central focus of their campaigns, Republican hopefuls -- with the able assistance of inane debate hosts and values voters from Maine to California -- are violating the very spirit -- if not the letter -- of Article VI, Clause 3.

  Dear candidates:

   Please answer a simple question. 

   Do you or do you not believe that the Constitution is the law of the land?

   And if not, why not?

 

 ©2007 Kurt F. Stone

  
 

When Good News is No News

   On Monday December 3, 2007, the New York Times reported that the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] has concluded that Iran put a halt to its nuclear weapons program way back in 2003.  According to the NIE -- a consortium of all 16 American intelligence agencies -- "[Iran's] decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon,irrespective of the political, economic and military costs." For anyone who follows the current of events or indeed, is a sentient being, this should come as good news.  After all, it would seem that this report is more than enough to puncture the administration's bellicose balloon; its ratcheting up of the rhetoric of war against Iran.  One might have imagined that logically, the administration's dire warnings of "World War III" would now fall into desuetude like the slide rule, the rotary phone or the flash cube.  To an intelligent being, it would seem that the very reason for even considering war in the first place -- the existence of a nuclear weapons program -- has now been removed.

   To assume this would be both logical and consistent.  It would also be wrong.  To President Bush and the brains behind the throne, this bit of "good news" is, in reality, "no news."

   Within 24 hours of the NIE being made public, President Bush held what must be considered one of the most disingenuous press conferences in the history of the Republic.  Defying the precepts of both Aristotelian and Boolean logic, Mr. Bush:

• Warned that despite the NIE, Iran remains an ever present danger;
• Claimed that his administration's use of diplomacy and sanctions are the reason that Iran has called a halt to its nuclear weapons program;
• Concluded that the very possibility of Iran's having halted said program offers convincing evidence that they will start it up again in the future ["I view this report as a warning signal that they had a program.  And the reason why its a warning signal is that they could restart it."]   

   Got all that?   

   When it was pointed out that this NIE was made available to him as early as 6 -- and as late as 3 -- months ago [the time when he began talking up war with Iran], Bush replied that he had no knowledge of what it contained; merely that he had been told that there was a new report on Iran's nuclear program.  Regrettably, not one member of the press asked the obvious follow-up questions: didn't you ask what was in it?  And if not, why not?

   Responding to the president's claim that he was not aware of the NIE's content until just the other day, Senator Joseph Biden [D-DE], Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, "I refuse to believe that.  If that's true, he has the most incompetent staff in American, modern history, and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history."
 
   "Look," Mr. Bush explained, "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon . . . . What's to say that they couldn't start another covert weapon's program?"  Pushing even harder against the outer walls of logic, he termed the NIE  "A report  that says what has happened in the past  could be repeated, and that  the policies used to  get the regime to quit are effective policies."

  I don't know about you, but I seem to remember that over the past several years, this administration has steadfastly refused to engage in any diplomatic efforts whatsoever with Iran.  So what "policies used to get the regime to quite" is he talking about?  And why, if he had access to the NIE at least 3 months ago was he talking up World War III?

   To borrow a quote from former Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" 

   Turning what appears on the surface to be good news into no news is a frightening turn of events.  It hearkens back to George Orwell's classic 1984, where the strategy is perpetual war, and the Outer Party's political slogan is "War is peace, freedom is slavery, intelligence is ignorance."

    One has no other option than to conclude that this administration has long desired to strike Iran -- regardless of whether they have a nuclear weapons program or not.  Even before the current NIE's release, experts predicted that Iran would not have full nuclear weapons capability until the middle of the next decade.  And now, with the four-year gap in their program, Iran likely could not obtain that capability until the end of the next decade -- if at all. 

   This episode is the icing on the cake; it paints, in excruciatingly fine detail, the portrait of a president who has lost the last vestige of credibility. 

   Is it any wonder that during last week's Republican presidential "debate," that the name of President George W. Bush was only mentioned twice, while that of Senator Hillary Clinton was referred to no less than 65 times?  Even his own partisans see him as damaged goods.

   When good news is no news, that's bad news.

©2007 Kurt F. stone