Discovery Blog

The beach out in front of the condo where I am visiting in Florida is four hundred feet wide; this despite the hurricanes of a couple of years back. The Atlantic is not advancing. It is inviting. The water is the same pleasant temperature I recall from days of yore (about 73F). Last night, however, a cold front moved in; it's about 59F in the sun. The sweaters have been pulled out.

So now comes this alarming article in The New Statesman by David Whitehouse--someone with a doctorate in astrophysics and a distinguished pedigree as a science writer. He says the earth's temperature didn't rise last year (that would be 2007) and has not risen since 2000. This calamity must be investigated. I am taking the article down to an enclosed cabana to review more closely over a cup of hot coffee.
http://www.newstatesman.com/print/200712190004

The returns are not in, so this is not about some candidate, winner or loser, tonight.
Plainly speaking (in the Iowa style), it is a travesty that the country is hanging on the outcome of caucuses in any state, even those conducted by the good people of Iowa.

Political parties need strengthening, and if caucuses were a reflection of real party roles in America, that would be fine with me. But they are not. The caucuses are exotic enough for average citizens that few can bring themselves to attend and, when those that do get there (at least to the Democrats' meetings) they have to submit to a lot of falderal about party platforms, delegate selections, etc., before they can vote. It is a kind of process that rewards those who are best organized, not those who are most numerous.

In other words, it is not really indicative of how the country is thinking, or even how Iowa is thinking in this case.

And it is far, far too early for people to having these decisions thrust upon them.
The schedule this year is warping the democratic process.

Parties benefit greatly and preferentially under the law, and that is well and good. But they should be expected to live up to certain criteria. The first in presidential years is that caucuses and primaries should not be held any sooner than March. We have reached the point of absurdity this election season, the first where half of a presidential term is being devoted openly to campaigning for the next election. I am surprised that there has been so little protest from the public.

The Huckabee candidacy challenges almost all the leading conservative as well as Republican partisan spokesmen. Most fear him, many despise him. Their strong temptation is to keep trying to explain to his voting base why he is unacceptable: his record of increasing taxes and spending in Arkansas, for example; his opposition to school choice (except home schooling) and his worrisome positions on illegal immigration. Then, despite his hawkishness on defense and fighting terrorism, there are his provocative sentences in Foreign Affairs that the Bush Administration has been arrogant in foreign policy.

Finally, Huckabee wears his religion on his sleeve. This actually helps him with Christians of many kinds, including some liberal ones, and it isn't all that different from, say, Barack Obama. But it puts off a great many other people who think it is presumptuous, that it oversteps the lines that unite Americans.

These are legitimate concerns and Huckabee and his backers need to address them carefully and thoroughly. He cannot go far if he loses a large share of the Republican vote, after all. Even a Republican president who got elected on "values" issues and then pushed high taxes and high domestic spending would wind up ruining his party for decades. So Huckabee has a lot of catch-up work to do and not much time to do it.

On the other hand, it also is plain that few big name pundits and GOP leaders are in tune with the voters Gov. Huckabee has attracted. In fact, the "values voters" routinely are taken for granted by such grandees. If the old Reagan coalition has been a family of defense hawks, small government advocates and social conservatives, the step-children in the family have been the social conservatives for a very long time. And they resent it. Many conservative publishers, columnists and editors are themselves irreligious or at least tepid in their faith; or they have internalized the Left's "wall of separation" idea. Consciously or not, they drink at the well of New York Times-style social bias. They can't help looking down on religious people, especially evangelicals. They don't bother reading the work of the social conservatives or studying their views or even talking with them. When they differ, they decline to debate. They and their preferred candidates just want to keep the social conservatives at arms length and then pander to them symbolically at election time.

There are many Catholics, as well as evangelicals, in the social conservative camp, and a number of religious Jews. Even some philosophical "stoics," who appreciate the policy positions, if not the faith elements. There are many public intellectuals and writers. For conservative pundits and partisans to condescend to these people is not just offensive, it is politically foolhardy.

If ANY of the Republican candidates for president had bothered to research the philosophy and policy recommendations of the social conservatives and--to the maximum extent possible--incorporate those positions into their own, it would have been noticed. There would have been a response. Fred Thompson, in particular, had the chance to do so and threw it away almost casually. He just assumed, wrongly, that he knew all about these voters. Even earlier, Sam Brownback, a senator who has thought deeply and is devoted to all that "makes us human," failed to connect with his own natural base. He didn't seem to trust his own instincts. He, too, thought he knew all about social conservatives, but he didn't.

Then along came Huckabee.

Now, either Huckabee figures out how to assure the rest of the conservative base, or his opponents figure out how to understand and reach out to the kind of people he has attracted, or there really will be a conservative crack-up this fall.

Discovery Sr. Fellow George Gilder has been pushing me hard to write about the preposterous over-emphasis on polls in American politics today. I have agreed, but I especially have to concur as a result of today's New Hampshire presidential primary.

It would seem that all the polls were wrong, at least about the Democratic race. Even the exit polls were wrong, the actual results deviating from the polls taken from the voters themselves as they had cast their ballots.

Money is constantly emphasized as crucial in American politics, but maybe in a presidential race, at least, it can be an exaggerated influence, too. McCain ran out of money months ago and seems to have won anyhow. Huckabee never had any money and still won in Iowa and came in a respectable third in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire is a lot of fun in an presidential primary year. This year it also bespeaks the vitality of American retail democracy. All the major campaigns have a right to be proud.

Thanks to the swan dives the pollsters and pundits executed into the empty pool of victory predictions before the New Hampshire primary, the Democrats now can expect a real contest for the presidential nomination. Neither Hilary Clinton nor Barack Obama, nor even John Edwards, will allow polling to force them out now. The self-justifying jabber on television and in the print media has been hilarious. The media and political elites cannot agree on what happened with the polls, other than that they were wrong. Hardly anyone will admit that the game of prognostication is flawed and out of date. The new doubts that are cast on polls constitute a welcome development for all of us who want voters to cast ballots on some basis other than the media's self-fulfilling claims of campaign "momentum."

On the Republican ballot, the most consequential surprise in New Hampshire was a stunning repudiation of the old dictum that "money is the mothers milk of politics," in the famous words of the late Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly, Jesse Unruh. In yesterday's primary, John McCain, whose campaign used up almost all its money by last summer and was nearly broke, defeated self-financed Mitt Romney and the rest of the field, just as penniless Mike Huckabee beat Romney a week earlier in Iowa. Such successive successes for poor-boy candidates was a rare double-whammy. One can think of only a few presidential years--the grass-roots draft campaign that helped Henry Cabot Lodge win the New Hampshire primary of 1964 comes to mind-- where it has happened even in one contest in a primary year, let alone two. Regardless, the dramatic turns in Iowa and New Hampshire now give hope for a marathon race for Republicans this year. It may mean that a wary public will have more time than anticipated to weigh the merits of the candidates, and that's good.

It also could mean a huge invigoration of political participation in America this year, with both parties possibly anticipating conventions where the outcome is not clear in advance. I don't say it's likely. I do say it's possible.

Dare political junkies hope for brokered conventions? How many Americans even know what that might look like? In days of yore, it meant party bosses trading favors and promises to garner enough votes to put a nominee over the top. Think cigar smoke and back room deals. Don't knock that system, it gave us the likes of nominees Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

Today's brokered conventions would be, if anything, more tempestuous, if less smoky. There are far more primaries than in the old days, and therefore many more idealistic candidate-oriented delegates unwilling to compromise. Imagine all those fired-up state delegations elected for Obama, Clinton and Edwards gathering at the Democratic convention, or assorted Huckabee, McCain, Romney and Giuliani delegates being forced to horse trade at the GOP conclave. ("Conclave", by the way, is one of those synonyms that have to be dusted off for covering a real political convention.)

It could happen if there are more surprises and variations in Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida this month and then in the cumulative outcome of the 29 primary/caucuses held on "Tsunami Tuesday," February 5. All that is required is the failure of one candidate to assemble a delegate majority before convention-time.

(NOTE: Discovery Institute Sr. Fellow Michael Medved, the respected culture and politics author and national radio talk show host, will provide a bi-partisan handicap of the February fun--and the coming political year--at a special Discovery Institute dinner in Seattle on the night before Tsunami Tuesday--Monday, February 4. Tickets are now available.)

We already have the gratifying prospect of the most open presidential nominating season to involve both parties simultaneously since 1952. Back then, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was "drafted" to run against Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, while a number of other candidates (Gov. Harold Stassen of Minnesota, favorite-son Earl Warren of California and a draft committee seeking nomination of another general, Douglas MacArthur) made certain that the convention in Chicago that year would be as hot and steamy as the host-city's summer climate.

On the Democrat side, 1952 saw the elegant Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson--who had the Daley machine's backing as surely as Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois has the support of the new Daley machine today--pitted against the folksy Senate crime investigator from Tennessee, Estes Kefauver. With several uncommitted delegations and more-or-less serious candidates and favorite sons such as Gov. A. B. "Happy" Chandler of Kentucky, Sen. Richard Russell of Georgia, Sen. John Sparkman of Alabama and Gov. Averill Harriman of New York, the Democratic race also was wide open when the party met--also in Chicago, a few weeks after the Republicans. Of course, the resulting tickets were Eisenhower/Nixon for the GOP and Stevenson/Sparkman for the Democrats.

I remember it all because I was there, at age 11, more or less on my own, commuting by train and subway to both conventions from my father's home in suburban Des Plaines. (Who would let a kid do that today?) No conventions since have been as exciting for me, or practically anyone else, I surmise. Some years, I grant, had riveting battles--the Democratic convention that picked JFK over LBJ in 1960, for example, or the literally riotous Democratic convention of 1968--but usually the mystery was gone by convention time, and it never was present for both parties in the same year. Not like 1952.

Until 2008, perhaps. One way or another, may many new kids this year open their minds to the possibility of public service after exposure to some genuine political drama. And, as in '52, may it all stay at least relatively civilized.

The horse race reporting on the presidential primaries obscures a number of truly important issues that candidates are not being asked about, even in television debates. Thursday night's Republican debate in South Carolina generally displayed Fox News asking good questions and almost all the candidates making very good impressions. But the range of issues in these debates is too narrow. Here are some important matters affecting the next White House that ought to be addressed in detail:

* Infrastructure. The Neal Peirce column for release January 13 will raise, among other things, the present campaign's avoidance of the nation's fading urban infrastructure and the continuing poor state of transportation. Do we want a strong economy? The little the Congress can do in the present situation actually does include improving roads and bridges and creating a strong passenger rail system that gives auto commuters and inter-city passengers more options. Had recent Congresses acted in this general area more aggressively, we would have money flowing into this job-creating, productivity expanding sector now, just when the economy could use the boost.

* Taxes and tax systems. This is the time, still early in the primary season, for candidates to air their respective plans. Economist Richard Rahn performed a service in The Washington Times on Wednesday with a brief review, at least, of the different candidates' ideas and stands. But, over all, the topic has received far less attention than it deserves if people's real concerns about the economy are to be addressed. The Democrats want, effectively, to raise taxes on the money available for capital investments just at the moment that the long expansion ushered in by the Bush tax cuts is sputtering.

* Entitlement mania. Why do even Republican candidates get sucked into big government health care proposals when the danger of adding a huge new federal entitlement is so obvious? Why, in contrast, have we simply stopped discussing the fiscal crunch coming in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as the Baby Boomers age? The problem isn't better today than it was four and eight years ago, it's worse. In all the campaign and media focus-group-generated buzz about "change", has anyone asked about how the American taxpayer is going to be able to handle all this? Does "change" really mean we go from bad to worse?

* The War on Terrorists. Yes, the issue gets discussed, but thanks to the major media, it is usually in the context of how quickly the U.S. can withdraw from Iraq. The reality facing America, rather, is the need to do more to combat the terrorists--and their ideology--at home and abroad. Iraq, as Sen. McCain points out, is now a success being ignored. It's almost as if we are embarrassed to find out that we are winning. On the other hand, the media and the campaigners also are ignoring deteriorating conditions in places like Somalia where Al Qaeda would like to regroup. Why, meanwhile, are we still doing such a poor job in the public relations battle ("public diplomacy," or, if you will, propaganda)? Surely the candidates have some ideas on how to do better. As is, the presidential campaign is effectively trivializing the potential for an historic advance for peace and freedom in the Middle East and around the world.

* Energy independence. Was it sheer cynicism that caused the media and the candidates in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses to over-emphasize the potential of ethanol? The way the topic of energy has disappeared suddenly would suggest that the answer is yes. So how about some serious questions regarding the real options for America, including our own oil and gas reserves and, more importantly, the huge opportunity to cut gasoline usage through plug-in hybrid vehicles? Do these candidates have anything new to tell us on this vital subject as oil hovers at $100 a barrel and undermines our economic growth? They probably do, if they are asked.

* The social issues; aka, the science issues. The Left is dying to debate the supposed "Republican war against science." Well, let's have that debate this year, from Darwinism to abortion to embryonic stem cell research to assisted suicide to the radical animal rights movement. At stake is what it means to be human. None of the candidates has really concentrated on this spread of related social issues that will face the next president. Are we going to debate them only after the 2009 inaugural? Throw in the exaggerated claims about global warming and you really must raise question of whether government-financed science lobbies are attempting to dictate public policies beyond their competence--and suppressing the academic freedom of scientists who dissent from their nostrums.

* Immigration beyond fences and amnesty. Apparently, almost everybody now wants to defend our border integrity first and to provide a route to citizenship for some immigrants only after that is accomplished. Fine, but meanwhile, Congress fails to deal with H1-B visas for high skill immigrants (think of technology engineers) that the economy needs to remain competitive. Congress and the candidates also seem deaf to the cultural aspect of the immigration issue, the sense that Latinos have that Americans look down on them. Actually, there has never been such a warm American abrazo for things Latino, from music to food to travel. We should be talking--smart candidates should be talking--about how to help our Mexican and other Latin American neighbors to build up their own economies so that there will be less pressure to enter ours by any but legitimate means. We can do that and still defend our borders. Illegal immigration indirectly breeds racism, but economic ties and development breed equal partnerships and sincere mutual respect.

You can turn to Al Jazeera to give you the Arab reactions to President Bush's Middle East peace initiative: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/88D0079D-658D-40F3-AB3B-BD0555F526A1.htm In essence, papers in countries that like us (Kuwait), are supportive of the president's attempts to find a peace solution before he leaves office, while others that are mixed in their attitudes generally (Egypt) are mixed about this trip, too, and the hostile ones are hostile (Palestine). It is the latter, Palestine, that matter most.

If, as the Palestinians quoted by Al Jazeera declare, there can be no peace without Israel recognizing "the right of return" to properties that the Palestinians' parents and grandparents left sixty years ago, there is not going to be any peace. Israel is not going to commit suicide.

Nonetheless, nearly every American president eventually seems to fall into the trap of thinking that somehow he can broker the great, elusive Israeli-Palestinian deal. Actually, the deal is there and waiting. All it takes is for the Palestinians to agree to it. Its benefits includes huge amounts of foreign aid and investment (from us, primarily) and huge opportunities for mutual trade and business partnerships (with Israel, mainly), and probably some big financial and security incentives from nearby Arab states that want to move on from the barren struggles of the past. The real sticking point is ending violent attacks on Israel. The PA has to sign a real peace treaty and enforce it--on its side, where the violations are wont to occur.

Right now the atmosphere for an Israeli-Palestinian peace should be promising on the international level. The rich Saudis and Gulf Arabs are worried about Iran and have no love for Iran's surrogates in the Levant, notably Hezzbolah and Hamas. Meanwhile, Iraq is turning into a U.S. success and the new Iraqi government is simply not interested in resuming Iraq's previous active opposition to Israel.

If the Fatah government of the Palestine Authority and the Palestinian people can see their way to a mutually acceptable peace settlement with Israel, Hamas can be discredited and its grasp on Gaza loosened. There will be an obvious comparison to be made when Gazans see how their grim lives under perpetual entifadah compare with the blessings that quickly will accompany any genuine peace between the PA and Israel.

But the "right of return" demand is just code for "never!" If the PA and its constituency can't get past that demand now, and rather clearly, you can shut down the talks tomorrow.

I have been to the West Bank, as well as to Israel, several times in the my life, most recently last summer. My first experience was crossing the "Green Line" in 1965 and walking through the "Mandelbaum Gate" that separated Jerusalem before the '67 War. In the 80s I visited schools and community centers and technical training programs in Ramalah and Gaza. As a result, I really long to see Palestinians lead lives of dignity, freedom and prosperity.

But sacrificing Israel, ironically, would do nothing to achieve such a future. Perverse as it may seem to some, the Palestinians need peace with Israel even more than Israel needs peace with the Palestinians. Under the right political conditions, the Palestinians can be enormously successful, as communities of Palestinians have shown in Jordan and elsewhere. Palestinians have their cultural hang-ups but they have more human capital than almost any other Arabs. Collaborating with the dynamic Israelis, rather than combating them, they could excel in every way.

President Bush is a fine international leader--though he is widely maligned--and his diplomacy in the Middle East is consistently underrated. History will be kinder to him than his contemporaries, as often is the case. But in his final year in office he should not allow himself to be pushed into pushing Israel. That would just set up the next failure.

A bright future is ready for the Palestinians. But only they can decide if they are ready for it.

I am in the camp that defends President George W. Bush, as recent posts attest, and especially on the War on Terrorists. I also refuse to accept that jihadism is not, in one description or another, the major concern of the public. Some polls divide the top issue between "Iraq" and "the War on Terror," as if you honestly could separate the two. Put them together, and it's the number one issue in the minds of voters. (John Wohlstetter's book, The Long War Ahead: And the Short War Upon Us, is appearing this month from Discovery Institute Press, with book parties in our offices in Washington, D.C. and Seattle. See the Discovery home page "Events" column for details.)

But America's anti-terrorist program is getting far too little scrutiny. The military is doing fine now. The diplomats are making progress. But the public relations campaign has been second rate from the very beginning, when we couldn't even get our our radio and TV stations up in Baghdad for months after Saddam was defeated. I wish I could salute it now, but I can't.

We have a great story to tell. There are many Muslims who share our concerns about the totalitarian threat of Al Qaeda and the irresponsible policies of Iran. But we do a poor job of helping those voices to be heard.

So hat's off to Gary Anderson, a sometime defense contractor and university lecturer, and The Washington Post for this useful article today. The White House should be taking it to heart

If you are a Florida voter and have made up your mind, you don't have to wait for the January 29 primary election; as of now you can hie yourself to one of many special voting locations and cast your ballot right away.

Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina come next, as you know. But Florida, with the most votes so far, seems destined for the most attention. And it's a lot more pleasant campaigning in the Sunshine State than in the whistling chill of Detroit, I should think.

Rudy Giuliani may not necessarily agree. He apparently is the only candidate running TV ads in the state now, but he also is getting unseemly heckling from a traveling band of pro-life protesters.

In any event, Floridians would have reason if they were miffed at both national political parties, especially the Democrats, for trying to snub Florida for scheduling a primary at a time unauthorized by party officials in Washington, D.C. The Democratic National Committee is especially tough, planning to punish the state by refusing to seat its delegation at next summer's national convention. (The state's Republicans will lose only half of their delegation. Thus, the national GOP is behaving only half as badly as the DNC.) As of now, the top candidates on the Democratic side supposedly are not going campaign in the state--except for appearances to raise money, of course!

But, the whole presidential battle right now is mostly a beauty contest, anyhow. A hot property tax measure will be on the Florida ballot and that will assure a large turnout, regardless of what the national political parties want. You can be sure that the estimated one million Democratic primary votes that are expected in Florida--with eight candidates listed on the primary ballot--will warrant ample media comment.

Meanwhile, if I were a local or state party official in Florida (Republican or Democrat) I wouldn't take any abuse from the national party. I'd tell them, put up with our delegates at the national convention or don't expect us to put up with the national ticket in November. Florida is about to pass New York in population. Does the DNC (or the RNC) really want to be seen on national television next summer telling Florida to get lost?

And if I were a Florida primary voter in either party showing up to ask questions of presidential candidates this month (even if you can only see the Democrats at fund-raisers), I would demand to know whether they will pledge to ask their delegates from other states at next summer's convention to seat the full Florida delegation. Put them on the spot while you can, folks. Do they care more about the voters of Florida or the national party bureaucrats?

Wasn't the DNC in an uproar eight years ago November because of speculative assertions that maybe a couple hundred votes weren't counted for president? How about a million primary votes for president going uncounted by the DNC itself this year?

The Democrats and Republicans both should promise to reform the national nominating process for 2012. And they should stop beating up on Florida for allowing its citizens to vote on a primary schedule not approved by the national parties.

"Change" is plainly a buzz-word, the kind of empty, but good-sounding term--like "positive" or "forward-looking"--that undoubtedly sparked eager consensus in a number of focus groups this winter. It expresses a mindless feeling. It doesn't mean anything concrete.

Now someone has written what should be obvious. http://www.nypost.com/seven/01142008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/change_to_what__exactly__81246.htm?page=2

Once again we have more people to cheer about: the U.S. produced 4.1 million babies last year, the highest number since the end of the Baby Boom. Welcome Future Taxpayers of America! http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BABY_BOOMLET?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

The big fuss does tend to slight the fact that the per-woman birth rate is only 2.1. That is merely the replacement rate for the current population. Still, it is an improvement. Thanks to all you parents who are taking responsibility for raising the next generation. I am serious. Having a child is one of the greatest votes of confidence one can cast in the future of society.

Yesterday I commented on the rising birth rate and birth numbers in the U.S. We are doing far better than the rest of the developed world, though we still are barely at the population replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman. (See story below.)

Today comes a report from the Guttmacher Institute that reports a decline in abortions. There were four hundred thousand fewer abortions in 2005 than in 1990. Nobody knows why, though I would give a lot of credit to ultra-sound and the word about it that has traveled among the female population. With ultra-sound you can see without question that what you are carrying is.....a baby.

Guttmacher is pro-choice in its politics, but in instances I have noted over the years, it has done creditable work on statistical matters.

Here is the story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080117/hl_hsn/usabortionratefallstolowestlevelindecades

On the presidential races, my analyses have been tracking closely--no surprise--with those of Discovery Institute colleague and nationally prominent talk show host, Michael Medved. But this week, in his Townhall column, Michael has done a remarkable thing. He has taken on virtually all his conservative fellow hosts for weeks of trashing two of the Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee and John McCain. http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/6dee8f0b-a7a5-40c6-b670-c0637d945de1

I myself would hesitate to criticize such a powerful group, but I have to say that I, too, have been wondering how it is that the bulk of conservative airwave warriors have not yet seemed to stop the two candidates they targeted. Maybe it is because in a field of five or six candidates it is hard to damage one or two unless you have one that you openly advocate, and the talk folks don't have that one. They can't decide between Romney and Thompson, so assailing McCain and Huckabee doesn't really provide much help for either of the preferred alternatives. This could change. It may be that the talk jocks' power still may be demonstrated as Florida and then Tsunami Tuesday develop. (NOTE: Medved the Super Analyst himself will handicap the races in both parties at a Discovery Institute dinner in Seattle on the eve of the big February 5 rush of primaries and caucuses. See our homepage for details.)

Another reason the conservative talk shows have not been determinative is that few conservatives, even the talk show hosts, are positively excited about anyone, including Romney and Thompson. It is obvious that each of the candidates (in both parties) has serious flaws. Conversely, each of the candidates has virtues. And, by the way, each certainly deserves credit for marathon stamina in this elongated campaign. My own runs for office took a few months and seemed like an eternity. This year's presidential campaign literally is taking years. The runners must be exhausted already. Mainly the people having fun are the broadcast and cable TV media who are treating it all as what I call Politainment, politics consumed as a glossy, gossipy alternative to the Britney Spears story of the day.

Meanwhile, the voters probably should not be too critical of the combatants, despite negativity and carping, because we benefit in the end. After all, they give us choices. And, if they are not perfect choices, they could be worse.

And talk radio? Maybe it does better at refining choices than defining them, at fanning fires rather than starting them. Talk show hosts are quick to announce the end of the mainstream media's control of the agenda, but talk radio itself has not replaced the MSM, either. Neither has the internet. Nobody's in charge anymore.

Except, perhaps, the voters. That is, when we get a chance to vote.

At the very time when the media are warning about threatened unemployment, the technology sector is complaining about the lack of available qualified personnel for all the new jobs opening up. This reminds me of the comments of Sen. McCain during the Michigan primary: We cannot recreate the old industrial jobs that we have lost. Instead, we have to train and retrain for the jobs of the future.http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,2248193,00.asp?sp=0&kc=HOTTOPICS012308STR2

I wonder if John McCain ever tosses and turns at night wondering about the giant hole in the fundraising laws that allows a wealthy candidate like Mitt Romney to fund any shortfalls in his campaign treasury. That hole is just one problem with the kiind of campaign finance reform Sen. McCain himself successfully promoted.

All the candidates, even Romney, are straining hard at this point to mount fund-raising efforts. Now that the competition is narrowing, it probably is becoming easier, but throwing fundraisers together in a few days leaves a lot of potential donors--and their money--for later visits. If there is still a race going into Tsunami Tuesday, February 5, I don't see how McCain can suddenly raise the cash he needs. In the old days, a promising candidate could get a big donor to float a loan for him that would be covered later. No more!

Nonetheless, it is notable that McCain raised a million dollars in New York last night and was back in Florida today trying to raise some more. All will go to the TV purchases he needs to make his presence known in this key state. Giuliani, though energetic and charming on the stump, apparently is falling behind in the polls, while McCain and Romney are neck and neck, with McCain considered a bit ahead. But Giuliani and Romney both have over $1 million in TV ads airing and McCain must at least compete with that. (Sen. McCain says he thinks Romney has $1.3 million in TV ads and that Giuliani has $1.7 million.) Huckabee, meanwhile, has pretty much left the state and is trying to pull out some victories in Southern states in the big February 5 primary and caucus blow-out.

I heard Sen. McCain speak in person today (The Palm Beach Post lists where the campaigners are appearing each day) and he seems like a political pugilist who is completely focused on tomorrow's debate at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. Romney is his real rival, that's plain. It is also plain to me that McCain is adjusting his message to attract more diversity of conservative support. His earlier emphasis on government cost-cutting is still there, but it now follows his advocacy of retaining the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010, a position he was taking almost as an afterthought a few months ago. In Florida he also is trying hard to show concern, finally, for the people worried about disaster insurance in an area with vivid hurricane memories. McCain has a plan to link the Southeast U.S. region together in a private insurance pool, and also to reform FEMA. But Giuliani explicitly backs a proposal for a huge public Catastrophe Fund, and Mitt Romney--who showed in Michigan that he is willing to promise $20 billion in government programs to battle unemployment in Michigan alone--seems up to matching the Giuliani bid.

The Romney argument worked with anxious voters in Michigan. Will it work in Florida? I don't know. One of the growing list of remarkable things about this year's extraordinarily long primary election season is that the winning candidates are not always the best funded or the best organized. And then, again, sometimes they are!

Florida Democratic party officials are clearly pained this week by the successful boycott that their national party has imposed on the Florida primary. Tonight's debate among Republican contenders, which generated infectious excitement at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton and was covered by TV and radio in the state beforehand and in long, enthusiastic reports afterwards--as well as being shown nationally--clearly made a hit. That's as it should be. Even these big debates (which are not classic debates and can't be, with five candidates on a stage) bring focus to an otherwise diffuse contest. No blood was drawn tonight, but that is not what the voters said they were looking for, anyhow.

To begin with, students, faculty and reporters had set up as the standard by which the candidates would be judged a precise discussion of substantive issues, and the solid response every one of the candidates made to questions from the media and each other plainly met that standard. There was some of the usual and trite horse race banter about fundraising and polls, but it was provoked by NBC's journalists, while most of the 90 minutes was consumed by meaty presentations on the economy, Iraq, insurance against hurricanes (a big issue here) and entitlement spending.

This helped contrast the GOP debate in Florida to the feisty personal exchanges between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the recent South Carolina debate. There was nothing wrong with that debate, either, in my opinion, but it seems likely that the public is still at the campaign stage where contestants are expected to pretend to enjoy each other's company and to sound a bit like policy wonks.

In any event, the biggest advantage for the Republicans in the Florida debate was that they had one and the Democrats did not. It was an unbelievable gaffe for the Democratic National Committee to prohibit candidates from appearing in Florida for the primary, even for a debate. Floridians calling talk shows and writing letters to the editor are inclined to see this shunning as punishment for them, not just for their state government, and to see the Democrats as arrogant. It's hardly the image of the party of the people.

Some details: The five Republicans, even Ron Paul, had their moments tonight. Huckabee managed to make his consumption tax alternative to the IRS seem credible on policy grounds and to inject some humor into the evening on a couple of occasions. McCain avoided the trap of seeming to be indifferent to the local people's worries about the need for hurricane insurance and to name drop his most recent endorsements from conservative anti-spending spokesmen and pro-military leaders. Romney was beset by another dig at his Mormon religion (from Tim Russert of NBC) and another (also from Russert) about his personal spending in the campaign. Romney would not say how much he was paying out of his own pocket, and, while he may have had good reasons, his refusal probably didn't sound right to many viewers. Still, he perhaps handled these questions as well as possible and on other, less personal issues was notably well organized and confident. Rudy Giuliani turned a hostile question about the negative editorial he got today from the New York Times into a delightful riff on the long history of Times' editorials that weree consistently wrong about his policies as mayor. However, it was harder for him to finesse a snide Russert question about his decline in the Florida polls of late. And John McCain, if anything, subtly rubbed in the possible irrelevance of a Giuliani vote (and hinted thereby the practical wisdom of Giuliani voters switching to McCain) by paying tribute to all the candidates on the stage, but singling out Giuliani as a real hero. Rudy looked more stricken than pleased by the unexpected praise. I think I might score the debate a slight win for Romney on points and for McCain on vote gathering. We'll see.

Meanwhile, the real barbs in the debate were aimed at the Democrats who, obviously, were not there to defend themselves. Indeed, because the Democrats are not going to be in Florida's primary in person at all, the real winner tonight, by default, was the Florida Republican Party

"Theodore Dalrymple" not only has one of the most droll pen names I have seen (the man is a doctor who enjoys his privacy), but he also is one of England's best writers on social issues--and its finest contrarian. One of his favorite targets is scientism and the ways it ravages the poor and ignorant. In this review in The New York Sun he is singing I song whose tune I know well and whose lyrics I never tire of: "Marx is Dead, Freud is Dead, and by the way, so is Darwin."http://www.nysun.com/article/69618

FBI Agent George Piro

CBS' Sixty Minutes devoted most of its Sunday program to one revealing story, an account of the remarkably productive seven month long interrogation of Saddam Hussein by FBI agent George Piro, an Arabic speaking American of Lebanese descent. According to the way the story was handled on the air and in the CBS online account of it, as well as the way the international press picked it up, the big news was that Saddam got rid of his WMD in the 1990s, but refused to prove it--even when threatened by U.S. attack. The reasons, he said, were that he feared revealing Iraq's weakness to its real enemy, Iran, and that he needed the perception of WMD to maintain his prestige at home. He also believed that the worst that President George W. Bush would do to him was to drop some bombs, the way President Clinton had done in 1998.

But that story, interesting as it might be, is not altogether new. Moreover, it does not compare to the golden news nugget lodged deep within the Sixty Minutes segment; namely, that Saddam expressly told Piro that he had planned to restart the WMD program in all phases--"chemical, biological and nuclear"--within a year after the lifting of U.N. sanctions. The 9/11 attacks and the reactions to them set back his plan, but didn't eliminate it.

This stated intention of Saddam constitutes fresh justification for the American-led invasion in 2003. Had the United States accepted the view that Iraq lacked WMD and no longer posed a threat, it would have been only a matter of time before new WMD efforts by Iraq were undertaken. And, once the West had stood down in 2003, the second round of WMD development would have been far harder to stop. By now--in 2008--Saddam could well have had the WMD he wanted all along. Iran, meanwhile, would have been given urgent incentive to move forward more quickly on its own WMD program. The Bush Administration knew all this, but now we have a report of Saddam himself confirming it.

There is little reason in this case to doubt either the veracity of Piro or the candor of Saddam. Certainly in its Sixty Minutes program, CBS and reporter Scott Pelley, demonstrate complete faith in Piro and the FBI reports. The FBI, says the CBS story, rates the Piro interrogation as one of the top achievements of the Bureau's past 100 years of existence. If, then, the Piro interrogation can be trusted, Saddam's plain statement that he had planned to construct WMD again also must be credited. In fact, it is credited in the Sixty Minutes program. However, it also is completely played down there, both in the program itself and in the CBS news account derived from it. The press stories that covered the program followed CBS' lead and lede. Most press stories that I found online omitted altogether Saddam's statements that he had always planned to restart his WMD program.

How could CBS News step on its own big story, and produce a minor story instead? Perhaps the answer is that for over five years now CBS and most Western media have followed the liberal party line has discounted President Bush's concerns about WMD, judging them either a deceit or a delusion. The American president was either malign ("Bush Lied, People DIed") or a dunce. As a third option, charitable interpreters on the left (and some on the right) have described Bush as sadly misinformed by his intelligence services and led to make the tragic mistake of invading Iraq. It took a long time, with day after day of news twists, but variations on these views finally suffused public opinion and persuaded a majority of Americans against the wisdom of the Iraq War. Who can doubt that those views are largely responsible for Bush's relatively low public approval ratings and his difficulty mobilizing public and Congressional support for prosecuting the war?

To showcase its program properly, Sixty Minutes would have led with something like this: "Revelations from a six month long FBI interrogation of Saddam Hussein conducted before his trial indicate that while the Iraqi dictator lacked weapons of mass destruction at the time of the American and Coalition attack in 2003, he fully intended to restart his WMD projects as soon as U.N. sanctions against Iraq were lifted. After months of elaborate interrogation by an Arabic speaking FBI agent, Saddam candidly acknowledged his plans. It would seem now that the US may well have had ample reason to attack Iraq, after all, though not for the exact reasons emphasized at the time."

Instead of that kind of news story, Scott Pelley leads Piro--an appealing, intelligent FBI agent of the kind that brings great credit to the bureau--on a somewhat rambling review of the extensive mental and emotional seduction of Saddam. Piro is presented as the FBI agent operationally in charge of Saddam's interrogation, but he clearly was part of a large team. The saga told on TV ruminates on such matters as Saddam's distrust of Osama bin Laden, the problems the FBI has finding Arabic speakers, and the terrible poetry Saddam wrote in prison and the way Piro flattered him about it. Then it turns finally to the gassing of the Kurds in 1998, a genocidal act for which Saddam told Piro he took personal responsibility and pronounced "necessary".

Only then does CBS have Pelley drop in this little handgrenade: "In fact, says Piro, Saddam intended to use weapons of mass destruction again someday.

"'Saddam had the engineers. The folks he needed to reconstruct his program were still there,'" FBI agent Piro reports.

"'That was his intention?'" asks Pelley.

"'Yes.'

"'What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?'

Answers Piro, "'He wanted pursue all of W.M.D. (sic)'

"'He wanted to reconstitute all of his W.M.D program--chemical, biological, even nuclear?'

"'Yes.'

And that is all there is of that!

As a matter of news judgment, I submit that if Saddam had told Piro that he really had no plans to start a new WMD program after the old one was dismantled, that would have been played up big by CBS and the mainstream media. But the fact that he said the opposite has been all but buried. The whole Piro interrogation of Saddam cries out for much more extensive coverage and maybe a Congressional hearing. Eventually, the whole story would make a fine documentary showing how the Iraq War, bad as it has been, probably spared Iraq and the world a much worse fate.

Meanwhile, even the conservative media seem to be missing the significance of this story. Most are simply ignoring the Piro interrogations altogether. The conservative online news service, NewsMax.com, does write about the CBS program, but mainly to take credit for having had it before CBS, citing an article from a new book by Ronald Kessler (The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to Stop the Next Attack, Crown Forum books). NewsMax relegates Saddam's stated intention to reconstruct his WMD program to a minor theme in its story, the major theme of which is the fascinating interrogation project itself.

Am I alone in recalling the weight put on the WMD issue when we invaded Iraq? I remember, in fact, thinking that the WMD threat should not have been forced to carry so much of the argument, since it was only one of several reasons to remove Saddam (e.g., his continued threats to his neighbors, his provocative attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush, his financial support of terrorism against Israel, his succor for assorted terrorists-on-the-lamb, and especially his many violations of the Gulf War truce terms). Most of these reasons, alone, would have constituted a justifiable casus belli. But, largely for diplomatic reasons at the United Nations, the threat of WMD was emphasized. Later, after the investigation, that threat seemed to be discredited and with in, in many eyes, the whole justification for the war.

I'll bet the FBI and its agent George Piro have very good knowledge and memories on the subject. So, undoubtedly, does George W. Bush.

Tonight's less than transformative Republican presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library seemed detached from reality at times, somewhat askew, as it were. Everybody kept invoking the ghost of Ronald Reagan, even the journalists. The Ghost of the Gipper was so palpably evident in the hall that both Huckabee and McCain started speaking of him in the present tense. At times it was more like a seance than a debate.

But we have a sitting Republican president who somehow did not get mentioned very much, or admiringly referenced very often when he was. Reagan left office 20 years ago, but "W" is in office now and will be in office for another 11 months. The candidates should notice. The voters certainly will.

I was part of the Reagan Administration, serving in three executive posts (including the White House staff) from 1981-88. I was not in the innermost circle, but I saw a lot that went on. Like other Reagan alumni, I also have been gratified to see the many excellent books that are beginning to catalog and assess the historic accomplishments of what was, by most accounts, the first successful American presidency in many years.

Channeling his spirit myself, I can safely say that President Reagan would be the first to acknowledge that he didn't get everything done that he wanted and that he and his staff sometimes made mistakes. But he had the saving grace of political focus that allowed him to achieve his main goals. So while, in the end, President Reagan did many significant small things, and failed to other significant small things, he performed three very big things: 1) He helped win the Cold War when almost no one believed it was possible. 2) He rescued the American economy with tax cuts and reduced many regulations and cut considerable amounts of government fat. And 3), he nearly rescued the third branch of the federal government by appointing conservative judges.

John McCain and Mitt Romney went head-to-head at a Republican debate on Wednesday, January 30, 2008.

Now, what bothers me is that something similar, if more modest, could be said of George W. Bush and yet he is getting almost no credit. Whatever his shortcomings, President Bush 1) has led this country and our allies finally to confront radical Islamic terrorists worldwide, learned from some initial mistakes and is well on the way to victory in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. 2) His Reagan-style tax cuts have helped generate five years of major economic growth and, in most respects, he has followed policies of reduced regulations that also have protected economic growth. 3) He has appointed many outstanding conservative judges and finally helped conservatives obtain a majority, most of the time, on the Supreme Court. In other words, his record follows the same track as Reagan's, except that he still has almost a year to complete it, so it is too early to fully assess.

But we are not hearing much at all about Bush's accomplishments, probably because the Iraq war is still not a settled victory and Bush's approval ratings seem stuck--if you believe the polls, which I don't--at about 37 percent (Rasmussen).

A well-funded left-wing propaganda effort apparently is underway to attack the Bush record during the remainder of the president's term. Accordingly, it is none to early for others to start to give credit where it is due. Yes, Bush so far has missed a number of opportunities to score in a major way on serious second tier issues (energy, science policy, transportation, and big spending). He also has many accomplishments on second tier issues (AIDS in Africa, science research, protecting human life). But the main thing about Bush is that, like Reagan, his main interest has been the main subjects. He deserves credit on these big issues.