Office of the Independent Blogger

Everyone reaches a proverbial fork in the road, and often there are several in a lifetime. The Republican Party has often asked itself in the last two decades, “Will we be the party of Blanken or Reagan?” and the answer has been, on budgets and on deficits at least, that the Republican Party will be Reagan’s. Now they ask themselves, “do we follow Reagan or Tom Tancredo?” and the answer shouldn’t need to take such public infighting as the Republicans have displayed. The answer for Republicans should be easy: follow the Dollar. Immigration is good for the Economy and, by all typical Conservative viewpoints, good for the Nation. The business of America is business, said Calvin Coolidge, and that’s been a Republican staple since the Roaring Twenties.

Stranger things have happened — like the Republicans scraping together the bare minimum for CAFTA and Medicare Reform in 2002 — but I can’t see an Immigration Bill passing both houses of Congress. As John Podhoretz puts it,

PREDICTION: Congress won’t send a new immi gration bill to the presi dent’s desk this year.
The differences between the legislation that passed the House of Representatives and the version that’s likely to pass in the Senate are just too great to be reconciled. Specifically, the Senate bill creates a guest-worker program, which is anathema to the immigration restrictionists who got their way in the House bill.

Once the Senate passes its legislation, the two versions of the immigration bill will have to be harmonized and turned into a third document that both House and Senate must then vote on. One of two things is bound to happen. Either it will be impossible for the two sides to come up with a document agreeable to both, or the reconciled version will not make it through one of the two bodies. And so the battle over immigration will go on, and on, and will probably play a major role in the next presidential election.

It might be possible that George Bush can whip the House into passing a Guest Worker Program, but I can’t see it happening. The Republicans are rebelling and the President is unpopular, two factors missing now that were present the last two times Bush had to rally at the last minute. Barring Bush strongarming the House — an increasingly unlikely scenario as his poll ratings dip beneath the Earth’s surface — I think Podhoretz is right.

John Podhoretz, as a side note, is a man for whom my heart has a certain fondness. In the past, he’s called me “a repugnant piece of shit” and an “utterly unspeakable asshole” before telling me to “go fuck [myself] twice.” You know, I’d never before been told off in such a manner by a grown, professional man. It was an experience. I’m waiting, and hoping, he’ll reply to an email I sent him inquiring about his article — he happens to send mixed messages all through it by discussing the reasons he’s stunned that people think immigration’s a problem before stating that he agrees with those who think immigration’s a problem before ending on a seemingly pro-immigrant-at-least-to-an-extent-and-certainly-compared-to-typical-Republicans note.

The Washington Times has always been a Right Wing Rag and always will be — that’s why Ronald Reagan called it his favorite “newspaper.” Today it editorializes about “Lost Sovereignty” to Mexico and wonders if we’ll become “Mexico North.” The argument is that we’ll become an Hispanic nation if we continue at our present rates, which may be true but I truly doubt it. But if the argument is that we need a wall to prevent us from becoming a Spanish nation, I’d rather be an Hispanic country than East Germany.

Truth be told, the debate on Immigration is a nasty debate on both sides. I do think, though, that the Right Wing, with its chants about Sovereignty and maintaining the Racial Integrity of the United States, would do more to perpetuate illegal immigration by doing nothing about it short of passing what would amount to, due to a lack of resources to enforce it, a strongly worded resolution. If you want to cut down on illegal immigration and keep reliable track of immigrants, pass a guest worker program, make people register, have them work and put money into our system, and then make them renew every few years. If they speak English, are contributing to the society and are making good, then you renew them and the Economy continues to thrive, America works well, and all’s well.

If they don’t, then you deport them. Either way, we have a record of things and our system works. It’s better than the crazed Right Wing Alternatives. Never thought I’d see the day that John McCain and Ted Kennedy would offer rational policy. At the height of his failures with Congress and his fights with the Democratic Party, President Truman fumed that it might do good for the White House to go to Eisenhower, because then Democrats would learn what it’s like to be out of power again and they’d appreciate the power they wield more. Come 1953, that’s exactly what happened. I wonder if George Bush is sitting in the White House and realizing just why Liberal Democrats hate the Republican Congress so much, and saying, “They might’ve had a point.” Have you ever had a headache that seems to move from one side of your head to the other — from the Left to the Right?

I’ll bet that’s how George Bush looks at the Republicans right now — a migraine migrating from the heads of all Liberals to His Own.

The Bull in the China Shop — the Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton — bothers me. He bothers me because I believe his first wife when she says he forced her into orgies and was so abusive that she fled home. He bothers me because he abuses his co-workers. He bothers me because this is his face. Then he bothers me because he hangs out with James Dobson, is a member of the Project for a New American Century, and he happens to look like this, I repeat.

A puff piece on John Bolton is out, and, while the beginning makes my eyes roll at its semi-flattering portrayal of Bolton as some sort of loveable workaholic, the following stood out to me:

Gallows humor is key to surviving the deadly serious business confronting the UN. Mr. Bolton sandwiched a one-hour sit-down interview on March 23 between marathon sessions over Iran’s pursuit of a program likely to include nuclear weapons. As Mr. Bolton negotiated with his UN counterparts among the four other permanent Security Council members, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on the phone to the Russian foreign minister. Over the weekend the two worked both sides of the Atlantic: Mr. Bolton hashing the details of a common statement from Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States, while Ms. Rice walked the English countryside with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, looking for a way to proceed against Iran in light of ongoing differences. Mr. Bolton succeeded. The Security Council agreed March 30 to call on Iran to cease uranium enrichment, just ahead of Ms. Rice’s meeting with foreign ministers in Berlin.

The good news, compared to Security Council divisions on Iraq, is that among the five permanent members “there really is a strong feeling that Iran cannot be allowed to get nuclear weapons,” Mr. Bolton said. “The difficulty we are having now within the Five Perm is we don’t have agreement on how to do that, what kind of message to send to the Iranians, how to cut off their efforts to master the technology that they need to get a completely indigenous command of the nuclear fuel sites.”

Concern over Iran, Mr. Bolton confesses, is very real. “There’s much that we don’t know. There’s much that the IAEA doesn’t know. That makes us feel a lot more nervous.” Apart from the UN atomic inspection program, he said, “What we look for is if there is any sign from Iran that it wants to pursue a different kind of relationship with the rest of the world. What you see is the exact opposite.”

You’d have to be blind to deny that the world is, right now, coming together on Iran beyond what might’ve been expected from them a year ago. That’s not what interests me about this article, though. The thing that I wonder about is, If Bolton is getting them to agree with us, is it because of him or because the Reality of the Situation is So Severe that they’ll work with us In Spite of Him? It makes me wonder what a legitimate Diplomat would accomplish. You know, someone who doesn’t abuse his wife, subordinates and the rest of the world.

Let’s find out in a few years. Dick Holbrooke for UN Ambassador, 2009.

There’s a day for everything, and today’s “thing” seems to be the Art of Asking a Stupid Question and Writing a Poor Article. First we turn to RealClearPolitics, where Ian Bremmer asks, What Would Civil War in Iraq Look Like? Maybe something like this, with more bodies? Seriously, what type of question is that to lead your article off with, especially when your piece is better titled, What Could Cause a Civil War in Iraq, And Then What Might Happen? since that, more than the “appearance” of a Civil War, is the subject of the article.

The article’s first point is that a Civil War in Iraq would only happen if all of that nation’s institutions collapsed. Oh really? I thought that Civil Wars occurred at times when the Government is strong and popular, and the nation’s institutions are well-rooted and accepted? That’s quite a thesis!

His second point is that a Civil War in Iraq might lead to Turkish intervention in the North, which is a fair and interesting point, I concede. Although I will say that, if he expects the EU and the United States to give their blessing to any foreign intervention in Iraq, he’s mad. Americans already are trying to deal with covert infiltration by Iran and Syria into Iraq — if the United States opened the door for Turkey to create a “buffer zone” in Northern Iraq through Invasion, it would lead to Iranian and Syrian claims to be able to do the same and compromise the mission.

Finally, he makes the point that “an Iraqi civil war would increase the risk of terrorist attacks in the region, but is unlikely to produce any sudden, dramatic surge in their number or intensity.” Very insightful. But not as insightful as his closing.

Civil war in Iraq is not inevitable. If Iraq’s newly elected leaders can form a government that the majority of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can accept, and if they can revise the Iraqi constitution to better fulfill the needs of all three groups, they can reduce the risk of widespread sectarian conflict. But the risk of civil war is growing. Understanding what an Iraqi civil war does and does not imply is important for preparing for this worst-case scenario, one that only Islamic radicals hope will come to pass.

A Civil War does and does not imply three things? Just three things? And what of the fact that his first point is explicit in discussing Iraq? And that the third one, too, is self-evident? And that the second one is unlikely? Oh, well. Today’s not the day for answers, it seems, or for a coherent, well-thought out article, either.

When you ask a stupid question, there’s only one thing that can redeem you: whether or not you get the right answer. There’s nothing worse than asking a stupid question and having the wrong answer. The Washington Post poses, Could Sanctions Stop Iran? and then answers, in effect, “Maybe. But probably not.” That is the right answer, with the “Maybe” in there only so as to note that it is possible, although highly improbable. The fact is that something has to be done about Iran, and espousing new “rules” that are intended to disrupt their Economy just won’t cut it.

But at least they got the Right answer.

In his latest article, former Congressman John Kasich displays insight typical and untypical of a Republican. His typical Republican insight is here, in his article where he basically recounts the recent collapse of the Ohio Republican Party as being a story of two parts: Republicans get happy, then corrupt; voters dislike it. The moral of that story? Keep Republicans unhappy — vote Democrat!

The untypical Republican insight can be found toward the end of his article, where he discusses the Political Winds in this Nation:

The biggest advantage going for Republicans, in purely electoral terms, is the ineptness of the Democrats. They have a long tradition of turning sure things into might-have-beens. This, however, is simply not enough. Democratic incompetence has led to Republican domination, which, with no effective opposition, has untethered the GOP from its first principles. In the absence of these, corruption has reigned. The political lens might be clouded and growing darker; but Ohio Republicans need to decide whether or not they want to stand for something.

He’s right, to the extent that Democratic incompetence leads to Republican incompetence. Democrats have a knack for failure in regard to getting elected — Republicans have a knack for failure once they’ve gotten elected. If one thing saves the Republican Party from humiliating itself this election year, it’ll be that Democrats fail to capitalize on the GOP’s lack of ability. But the Republicans aren’t getting a free ride this time.

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats unveiled a list of things that they would do, in regard to Security, to make America safe. Pelosi was holding it upside down. Seriously, turn on CNN and watch the footage get played again, and laugh. Then read the actual document, and realize that the Truly Funny Thing is that George Bush hasn’t done the things the Democrats seek to do. Or, it’s funny until you really think about it, and then Bush’s failure to secure the Homeland successfully gets scary. There really is a day for everything, and the day to start setting things right comes this November.

The main subject of this will be the Crisis with Iran, but other news can not be ignored: today, we learned that Jack Abramoff is going to jail for six years. Let me say that I don’t particularly feel bad for the clients he defrauded. The casino interests that he defrauded were seeking to defraud the nation, and so they were as crooked as he and likely belong in prison, too. I am glad that he’s going to prison, no doubt, but his crime isn’t defrauding his clients. It is the defrauding of the United States Federal Government, and by extension the American public.

Human beings need to learn to live with the Truth or with the Consequences of Lying. Jack Abramoff is proof that people who think they’re God get put in their place eventually, and that the lies you spin will hang you over time.

The UN Security Council has issued a demand for the Iranian Nuclear Program to be Suspended. There is nothing extraordinary to note in this, except that it is one more note in the Opera of Diplomacy going on between the Rest of the World and the Nation of Iran. I’m not fond of Krauthammer (he’s got the ethics of a prostitute and the mind of a Republican), but his latest article on the standoff is dead on.

We’re now at the dawn of an era in which an extreme and fanatical religious ideology, undeterred by the usual calculations of prudence and self-preservation, is wielding state power and will soon be wielding nuclear power. We have difficulty understanding the mentality of Iran’s newest rulers. Then again, we don’t understand the mentality of the men who flew into the World Trade Center or the mobs in Damascus and Tehran who chant “Death to America”–and Denmark(!)–and embrace the glory and romance of martyrdom.

This atavistic love of blood and death and, indeed, self-immolation in the name of God may not be new–medieval Europe had an abundance of millennial Christian sects–but until now it has never had the means to carry out its apocalyptic ends. That is why Iran’s arriving at the threshold of nuclear weaponry is such a signal historical moment. It is not just that its President says crazy things about the Holocaust. It is that he is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi’ism’s version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away. He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for “those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink … as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive” his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution’s raison d’être is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. How better to light the fuse for eternal bliss than with a nuclear flame?

For my money, the best attempt at a peaceful solution lies with a quarantine of Iran, a blockade which, in reality, amounts to an embargo on their gasoline and oil. It’s something that should be discussed at the White House early and often, and I’d be stunned if it wasn’t. The show of International Resolve would tell the Mullahs that the World is serious, and it would provide the necessary legitimacy for the World to argue that they did everything they could short of War to disarm the Iranians if, and once, the War with Iran begins.

Mark my words: the current path that Iran is leading the World on leads to a World War. If not a War that is global in its scope, with aerial battles in the Pacific and dead Americans in California, with destroyers in the Panama Canal and paratroopers over Iceland, then it will lead to War everywhere, as Muslims battle Israel violently and for a sense of finality; as the Russians battle the Separatists in their nation; as the Chinese and the Russians split with the United States, emboldening Korea’s aims over Japan.

Iran is a problem that can’t be kicked to the curb. And it has to be dealt with by the world, and soon. Angela Merkel recently compared the Iranian Situation to the one with Hitler, and the comparison was apt, if a tad odd coming from the German Chancellor. But Hitler didn’t have ovaries, Bubba, and he didn’t have Nuclear Weapons, either.

Iran does. And that makes this issue critical, and solving it paramount above all other problems.

I believe that everyone should be encouraged to strike out so long as they’re willing to step up to the plate. There isn’t a single reason on this Earth to ever deny someone the right or the means with which to express themselves. I’ve always admired those with ideas — even stupid ideas, and especially seemingly crazy ideas — that they express, because the alternative to expressing your thoughts, your emotions, your beliefs and your vision is the supression of yourself and silence. How silent would the forest be if only the best birds sang, and how terrible this world would be if no one ever spoke their thoughts.

My views on the Encouraging of Human Expression are not a tangent. They are my way to introduce us to this piece on the Welfare State, one of the finer articles I’ve read in ages. It begins with the truth, true and unequivocated: “This much is certain: The welfare state as we know it cannot survive.” The more people begin to talk like this, the better the dialogue on the well-being of Americans will be, for if we transform “How do we best preserve Social Security?” into “How can we best ensure the well-being of our citizenry?” we’ll all be in a better place. And that isn’t a knock against Social Security, either. Let’s turn to Charles Murray for his idea on the best solution:

Instead of sending taxes to Washington, straining them through bureaucracies and converting what remains into a muddle of services, subsidies, in-kind support and cash hedged with restrictions and exceptions, just collect the taxes, divide them up, and send the money back in cash grants to all American adults. Make the grant large enough so that the poor won’t be poor, everyone will have enough for a comfortable retirement, and everyone will be able to afford health care. We’re rich enough to do it.

Consider retirement. Let’s say that we have a 21-year-old man before us who, for whatever reasons, will be unable to accumulate his own retirement fund. We accumulate it for him through a yearly contribution for 45 years until he retires at age 66. We can afford to contribute $2,000 a year and invest it in an index-based stock fund. What is the least he can expect to have when he retires? We are ridiculously conservative, so we first identify the worst compound average growth rate, using constant dollars, for any 45-year period in the history of the stock market (4.3% from 1887-1932). We then assume our 21-year-old will be the unluckiest investor in American history and get just a 4.0% average return. At the end of the 45-year period, he will have about $253,000, with which he could purchase an annuity worth about $20,500 a year.

That’s with just a $2,000 annual contribution, equivalent to the Social Security taxes the government gets for a person making only $16,129 a year. The government gets more than twice that amount from someone earning the median income, and more than five times that amount from the millions of people who pay the maximum FICA tax. Giving everyone access to a comfortable retirement income is easy for a country as rich as the U.S.–if we don’t insist on doing it through the structure of the welfare state.

Health care is more complicated in its details, but not in its logic. We do not wait until our 21-year-old is 65 and then start paying for his health care. Instead, we go to a health insurance company and tell it that we’re prepared to start paying a constant premium now for the rest of the 21-year-old’s life. Given that kind of offer, the health insurance company can sell us a health care policy that covers the essentials for somewhere around $3,000. It can be so inexpensive for the same reason that life insurance companies can sell generous life insurance cheaply if people buy it when they’re young–the insurance company makes a lot of money from the annual payments before eventually having to write the big benefit checks. Providing access to basic medical care for everyone is easy for a country as rich as the U.S.–if we don’t insist on doing it through the structure of the welfare state.

It’s a fascinating premise, and I predict that policy wonks will fall further for it as the years go by. In fact, I take the position that the currents of time will force this into being within the mainstream of American thought in about twenty years. And why not? The Culture of America is in for serious change, and we must learn to stop throwing things away and to better invest in the future. President Clinton used to call his Economic policies “Invest and Grow” Economics, and that idea, that mold, should be the one encasing policy.

Critics of this idea would argue, and do argue, that it might compromise the security of the Welfare State and endanger Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That is likely so, but it isn’t as disturbingly sinister as special interests might make it out to be. It endangers their security because it is, on the surface and in reality, a better program. If it weren’t logical and sensible, then it wouldn’t be a threat to those programs! People often consider the Welfare of Welfare — the maintainance of the Status Quo in regard to the Welfare State — to be important. It’s why George Bush’s idea of Private Accounts added into Social Security were met so violently — and no, I do not like the Bush Proposal, but the Idea itself is not one that needs to be met with instant Death — and that’s because people want to keep things the way they are.

But who cares about maintaining present programs? By all means, if you’ve got a chance to upgrade what you have for something that’s substantially better in every way, do it. Innovation is the key to American society, and ideas such as this — the reinvention of the Status Quo — are key to American Liberalism, much like free and unfettered Debate is key to American Democracy. Change begins inside your head. And when that change comes, you’d better hold onto it and take it for every good it can bring. Ideas such as this are good because they prompt us to reimagine the world around us and think of the many ways in which we have to meet the challenges facing us.

But, also — Ideas like this are good because they make sense. And because they’d work. Make this the Federal Program for the American public, and leave any extra Welfare Programs up to each state to decide. And why not?

A lot of people on the Nativist side of the Intellectual Border (or, as I like to call it, The Border of Reactionaries) have asked why the Federal Government refuses to “do something” about the problems posed by illegal immigration. If it were up to them, the Federal Government would take the “necessary action” and pass a law making it a crime to not only be here illegally but to assist someone who is here, whether that be by forging documents for them or giving them advice or a meal.

Might I say, I’ve never been a fan of George W. Bush, but I think his proposal about Guest Worker Programs works far better than anything else on the Market. Tragically, however, the Republicans in Congress have hijacked the Debate, and like with anything that the GOP puts their spin on, it’s a messy, fractious thing. It’s important to point out, before we continue, the humor of the situation. Republicans have often criticized the Democrats as the unorganized, weak party with too many ideas and not enough sense — and here they go, in what could be seen as the greatest display of political crossdressing in history, acting like what they argue the other party is.

The debate over immigration is ridiculous on both ends. The argument that the American Government took the Southwest from Mexico after a War and that this means it’s really the Land of the Mexicans is absurd. And the argument that we need a wall between Mexico and America to protect us from terrorists is even more laughable: if I were a terrorist, I’d cross from Canada, an easier border, than the Southern one. If I were a migrant worker searching for a restaurant that needs new help in Cleaning, I’d come from Mexico.

Either way, I thought it was just the Stone Cold Communists and the Hyper Aggressive Israelis that built walls? Let’s get the idea of a forced divide out of our heads — it isn’t going to happen, and shouldn’t. It is worthy of noting, however, that the problems posed by this bill illustrate the greatest problem today with the Republican Party: it isn’t George W. Bush that’s the messup, it’s the Republican Congress. The Congress tilts so far to the Right that they’d re-enact the actions of Nikita Khruschev, and mimick the antics of East Germany in an effort to “preserve” — preserve what? The white race? The Economy? Their own re-election?

A great sadness overcomes me when I look to Washington D.C. these days. This sadness overtakes my senses because of the amount of innocent lives that are being played with by a Republican Party hellbent on shoving Immigrants out of their country, as their Cherokee Ancestry merits them the Universal Right to American Land. But it’s not just the bizarre, angry rants about Immigrants and the practice of Immigration that bothers me: it’s the fact that, after all that goes on, millions of innocent, hardworking people are going to be shafted by the Republican Party if they pass one of the bills they intend to pass.

The Kennedy-McCain Bill is reasonable enough, although I prefer the Bush bill. When people are talking about immigration, they should think of two things: first, the individuals whose lives will be drastically altered by any rash legislation; and second, that the economy needs immigrants to thrive. You restrict the practice, and you flip your own burger to spite your neighbor. The people intent on humiliating the President and “reforming” immigration should look to the mirror and genuinely ask themselves what the problems really are here. Then, after they’ve thought about it, they should ask themselves: have we crossed the line?

Briefly, let me state that, in the past, I lobbied for the Removal of Andrew Card as Chief of Staff, not for ideological reasons but because, as I saw it, he was a failed Chief of Staff at this stage in his career. All Presidents are human and each President needs assistance from competent, energetic men. I felt that Andrew Card was a worn man who was giving the President bad advice, and I considered him a weak fellow compared to King Karl Rove, regardless. Andrew Card served the President well for years, and helped guide him through his First Term, for the best, in Bush’s view, and he helped guide him through the worst, in Bush’s view, during his Second. But Card’s calling card wasn’t impeccable integrity, intelligence or even anything particularly unique — in a White House where every card is a Joker, his trademark was Loyalty. But when your “loyalty” to the President is what you hang your hat on, it’s what you’ll be hung for. Loyalty can only take you so far in Washington, and the Right Wing thinks it’s time to pull you, they’re going to pull you. Andrew Card was seen as an opponent of Conservatism at worst, and an obstacle to Competent Incompetence at best, by the Fringe of the Party. For the President’s failure to articulate a coherent vision on Social Security, and because he overreached and claimed it as his “Mandate,” Card had to lay upon the table.

Into Card’s shoes will step Josh Bolten, the present Budget Director who I have always been fond of, and Slate’s take on it makes the most sense, in my view. Josh Bolten isn’t going to shake the White House down or create great, monumental change. I like him not because he’ll change things — as the article points out, only the President can significantly change the President’s course — but because he’s reliable, intelligent and only mildly Conservative. In a way, he reminds me of Paul O’Neill, or of Colin Powell. That is, if Colin Powell were as decent as people say he is.

Since Bush is comfortable with Bolten, his new chief of staff may be able to tell the president when he’s wrong and deliver bad news—occasionally. He’ll also have the clout to push back against Karl Rove and the vice president. Bolten has an advantage over them that Card didn’t. Bolten knows policy better than anyone in the White House. He has no particular political skills, but no newcomer was going to replace Rove in that arena anyway. In a debate over the ultimate shape of immigration reform, for example, Bolten will have standing on specifics of the issue that might shape the outcome. Known as a moderate in the Bush firmament, he should give some hope to those Republicans who worry that the White House listens too closely to the party’s conservative and evangelical wings.

Bolten seems to have no blood pressure, an appearance that can be deceiving. Aides joke that you could hand him a flaming toaster and he would wait patiently for the bread to be done. But Bolten’s even keel masks how tightly he is wound. His desk gives him away. The papers sit at right angles, and the binders and books are aligned evenly by their spines. He demands accountability even from his pile of paper clips. The policy wonks who have worked for him say he exacts rigor. Such precision will lend credibility to any change he suggests.

The greater questions posed by this aren’t so great. “Is this a sign of a greater shake up?” Certainly not. No shake up in this White House is complete until Karl Rove is back on the streets of Texas to be rejected by future Education Secretaries when he asks them on dates. The move, however, is not a meaningless scrap of meat thrown to the chatterboxes of the media, including those right-wing sensationalists and those who are merely scandalous. It is an indication that the President, finding himself in a more pensive mood, wants a man better able to advise him on sound policy. Or that’s what my instinct tells me.

With a war raging in Iraq (and with that nation’s border-line flirtation with Civil War), along with Republicans having their own Civil War to deal with in Washington, the President has a lot to think about. This is my first post in this newly renovated Office of the Independent Blogger, and so, considering the time, I will close this for now. Tomorrow, we will discuss the problems with Iran, Immigration and the Welfare State. Until then, I direct you to this article, which any healthy Policy Wonk should read.

This is the Office of the Independent Blogger. Independent in the same sense that Ken Starr was. Which means “Not Very Independent” indeed! (No, I won’t be closing with that tagline all the time. It’s just a special occasion here!)