Edwards Gets a Bump from an Unexpected Source

A recent New York Times column sings the praises of former Senator John Edwards. Its source might surprise you: David Brooks, the Times' conservative voice, appears to really like Edwards.

The portrait he paints is very interesting. I should point out that I wasn't able to read the entire article because it's in the "Times Select" selection (think ESPN Insider) and requires a subscription. But there are a bunch of summaries and reviews online.

Brooks talks about how every candidate has a story they tell on the stump, "Some talk about being part of a great movement [Obama]. Some talk about surviving an ordeal with a band of brothers [Kerry]. John Edwards’s stories begin with family, continue with work and solitary struggle and conclude with triumph over privilege." Edwards' stump speech, which Brooks calls "the best of the last decade," basically won him his nomination as vice president in '04.

But 2008 isn't 2004, certainly not for Edwards. The people have heard the speech, have met the man. So in reshaping his campaign 4 years later, Brooks expected Edwards to move left, outflanking Clinton and Obama. But, instead, Edwards has stayed true to his populist economic message:

"...it’s clear that the Edwards campaign is based on the same conviction that organized his last campaign: no one understands regular people the way he does. No one else can get out of a bus in places like Pocahontas, Iowa, and bond with the farmers, nurses and hairstylists the way he can. No one else comes from their ranks the way he does." According to Brooks, Edwards' disdain for children of priviledge created a rift between him and Kerry that was palpable in 2004.

In fact, Brooks calls Edwards "a culturally conservative anti-Washington liberal," as evidenced by that "2 Americas" stump speech, which takes Washington to task for creating our country's extreme wealth disparity. The point is that Edwards is a Democrat because he grew up a poor boy in North Carolina; he wants to do for people like his parents, people like the ones he's desparately trying to convince in Iowa.

The major difference between Edwards then and now is that "This time, Edwards is not as exciting a campaigner. But he is more substantive. He seems to have concluded that eloquence alone can’t make him presidential. So he talks less about himself and mixes his bromides with wonkery. His answers on everything from China to ethanol are filled with complex, multipart arguments. He passes on opportunities to be demagogic."

So Edwards seems to be a more attractive candidate now. But the star power of Clinton and Obama and the stench of 2004's disappointment are conspiring against him. Whatever the outcome, he's got an unlikely fan at the Times.

"You're doin' a heck of a job, Stickly!"

A major criticism of the Bush administration has been that it lets foxes guard America's hen houses. For instance, it let the oil industry influence its energy bill. Another criticism is that the administration has given political appointments to unqualified candidates based on loyalty rather than competence. For instance, Alberto Gonzalez, Michael "Brownie" Brown or Harriet Myers (who was almost "Justice Myers"... wow).

It seems these two criticisms may have converged in the person of Richard Stickler, who, as our country's mining czar, is in charge of mine safety. Well, after over 80 years of improved mine safety, mine deaths have been going up the past few years. And yesterday there was a second tragedy in the Utah mines-- 2 more miners are dead, another 7 injured. This on the heels of 6 miners trapped, and still unrecovered.

So this decline in safety could be just a string of tragically bad luck.

But yet, some saw it coming.


President Bush nominated Mr. Stickler for his current position last year, but was forced to withdraw the nomination amid opposition from ALL the mining unions, families of victims of mining disasters, Senate Democrats, and some Senate Republicans. The opposition was so strong, the Bush had to sneak Stickler in the through the backdoor: a recess appointment, where the Senate doesn't give an up or down vote. What was all the fuss about?

As a mining executive, the guy's safety record sucked.

Now, Keith Olberman and bloggers at Huffington Post are taking Stickler (and President Bush) to task. Check their takes out here and here.

In case you missed it...

I heard about this a couple of days ago, and The Daily Show ran it last night. It's probably been around for a while, but if you haven't seen it you should...

A 1994 interview with Dick Cheney (then a fellow at a conservative think-tank) reveals that as Bush 41's secretary of defense, Cheney didn't think going into Baghdad was a good idea because of the chaos it would cause. He talks about warring factions, interference from Iran, the destabilization of Turkey, and abandonment by allies that supported the Gulf War.

Ultimately, Cheney says, Saddam just wasn't worth that many American lives.

Okay, so if 9/11 made it worth it to get Saddam, where was this talk from Cheney in the lead up to war? In fact, Cheney said we'd be greeted as liberators, and the whole thing wouldn't take more than a few weeks. Maybe he made a grave mistake, but what changed his mind from 1994 to 2002?

We deserve an answer.

We probably won't get one.

The Cat's Out The Bolso!

Staying true to his communist, and thus, dictatorial, fashion, Venezuelan President Chavez has proposed that his nation's constitution be amended to reflect an indefinite amount of terms for the president. Hence, unlimited reelections. Also proposing an extra year to the presidential term (now at six), the AP has the Jefe denying any attempt to entrench his position as leader of the Latin American OPEC giant. After nationalizing critical industries and limiting one of the most basic human rights, that to express political, and other, thoughts freely and without government restraint, why would we doubt El Presidente's assertion against entrenching his and his cronies' political clout?

Can anyone really say they didn't see this coming? Let me go out on a limb here and predict that Castrinho will...wait for it...cancel local, regional elections and enforce the central government's will. This will involve further restrictions of liberties, but that is the ultimate communist characteristic: To do for your fellow man, because you don't trust your fellow man.

RIP: Tommy Thompson... 's campaign

Tommy Thompson's presidential campaign passed away Monday, a spokesman said, after a long bout with obscurity and lack of funds.

Governor Thompson fought hard, right until the end, but after finishing a disappointing 6th of 11 candidates in the Ames, Iowa straw poll, the campaign finally succumbed. Mr. Thompson's campaign will be remembered for its... well, it won't be, but it was apparently a really cool campaign.

Thompson, Wisconsin's former governor, was somber after the news of his campaign's passing-- apparently the two were very close. "I respect the decision of the voters," he said. "If you can't compete in the heartland, if you can't compete in Iowa in August, how are you going to compete in November of '08?" In a related story, Tom Tancredo and Sam Brownback were seen weeping a corner.

"This whole thing just hits too close to home," Tancredo said.

The campaign leaves behind the couple of hundred people who voted for Thompson, and whoever was dumb enough to give it money (interestingly, the campaign's dying words were: "A fool and his money are soon separated.")

America's Team: The All- Presidential Center

Time to round out the starting 5 with the center. The man in the middle. The big man. You can talk about MJ, Dr. J, and all the other great guards in basketball history, but the sport has always been a big man's game. And the man who was probably our best president was also our tallest.

"Honest" Abe Lincoln saved our Union, wrote and delivered the best presidential speech ever, freed the slaves and had a dominating sky hook. Okay, well he didn't perfect the hook like Kareem, but he rose from a backwoods, country lawyer born in a log cabin, to possibly the greatest American ever.

Here's how War and Peace author, Leo Tolstoy put it:

"The greatness of Napoleon, Caesar or Washington is only moonlight by the sun of Lincoln. His example is universal and will last thousands of years... He was bigger than his country-- bigger than all the Presidents together... and as a great character he will live as long as the world lives."

Is there any question that if this guy balled, he'd be a dominant center? He's Shaq, Kareem, Wilt and Bill Russell put together.

Abe's stats:

16th President (1860-1865)
Height: 6' 4 1/2"; 6' 10" with the hat
School: Hard knocks (self- taught)
Party: Republican

Here's the All- Time Presidential starting basketball line-up:
Point Guard: George Washington
Shooting Guard: John Kennedy
Small Forward: Teddy Roosevelt
Power Forward:Lyndon Johnson
Center: Abraham Lincoln

But we're not done yet! The all time team still needs a coach and a 6th- man coming off the bench. So check back soon and see who fills out the roster.

Carville on Rove

Karl Rove and James Carville: two giants of modern politics, each their respective party's most recognizable "behind the scenes" figure. Each man changed the way the game of politics is played, guiding unlikely candidates to the presidency. Rove, known as "Bush's brain," used wedge issues and mobilized the conservative base as George W. Bush's right hand man. Carville, aka the Ragin' Cajun, revolutionized political message and changed how it's delivered.

Yesterday, in a move that brought Gerald Ford's most famous quote to the minds of many Democrats ("Our long national nightmare is over"), Karl Rove announced he is leaving the White House.

Today, the Financial Times has reaction by Carville, Rove's rival and counterpoint.

Carville analyzes how Rove, despite "spectacular success," lost "a generation of Republicans" for his party. He really takes Rove to task in this. Check it out. In the interest of full disclosure, I worked for Carville in Washington, DC, and think he's the man.

John Edwards' Attack Dog

It seems that Elizabeth Edwards has emerged as a pit bull for his husband's presidential campaign. A few weeks ago she told crowds that her husband was better on women's issues than Hillary Clinton.

And she's keeping it going... criticizing Hillary Clinton for refusing to "apologize" for her vote for use of force against Iraq (which contrasts nicely with her husband's apology). She's also called Obama's stance on the war into question. As a state legislator, Obama gave a speech against the prospective war, but Edward's questioned his motivation: "Obama gives a speech that is going to be extraordinarily popular in his district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding... so you are going to get people behaving in a holier than thou way."

She's also gone after the front-runners on health care, taking aim at Hillary for saying "we need to develop a political will" to tackle the problem. Ms. Edwards referenced her cancer, and those with whom she's spoken, battling the disease without health care, saying, "We don't need to develop [a political will]."

Obama's health care plan hasn't been spared her wrath, either; it's been criticized as a day late and a dollar short (or, more accurately, 6 months late, and 15 million people short).

Okay, here's the SAM bottom line question: why is Edwards taking them on?

Well, the answer isn't too tough to come by. Her husband's campaign is hurting. He still leads in Iowa, and has staked his future on winning there, but his fundraising numbers and national polling has lagged big time, and he's in danger of becoming obsolete.

Edwards can't go negative himself, primary voters hate when candidates attack each other (remember Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: Thou shalt not attack thine fellow Republican). However, voters also dislike when potential first ladies play too large a role in their spouses campaign (think Teressa Heinz- Kerry or Hillary Clinton), and when they get too "mouthy" (for lack of a better term).

But someone from Team Edwards needs to take on the front runners, someone that commands press and voter attention and, more importantly, respect. Ms. Edwards has battled her cancer courageously, so much so that she's untouchable. It's an accomplishment that the woman is still active and passionate. She's become immune from criticism herself, and the campaign knows it.

Who knows if it will be enough, but don't expect the Edwards pit bull to go back in its cage any time soon.

America's Team: The All-Presidential Power Forward

Here we go, time to pick the Power Forward of our all- presidential team. But first, let's do a recap of our team so far:

Point Guard: George Washington. The Father of Our Country, we picked America's first general as our floor general, because of his selflessness and impressive stature.

Shooting Guard: JFK. He takes the two guard spot because the man could flat out score... and he wasn't a bad athlete, either.

Small Forward: Teddy Roosevelt. He wasn't the biggest, but he had the energy and will to be a force.


That brings us to the Power Forward spot... which requires two things: size and the power to intimidate, a la Larry Bird. He's got to grab rebounds, score the ball, and usually lock down the opposition's big man on D.

So we're going with the one and only LBJ- Lyndon Johnson.

LBJ's Stats:

36th President (1963-1969)
Height: 6' 4"
School: Texas State University-San Marcos
Party: Democrat

Johnson was known as the "Master of the Senate" because he basically ran that body as his personal club. He used his imposing presence to physically intimidate other members. He could often be seen bringing a Congressman to a corner, towering over him and peering down in an effort to secure his vote. And it usually worked. Johnson was a Type- A personality if there ever was one ("I don't get ulcers, I give them!"). As a pol he used his size and power to get the job done, we'll bet he'd do it on the court, too.

Quote of the Day 8/10

"What I believe is that this is an issue that you’re born with. It’s not a choice, it’s not a lifestyle, and I didn’t understand the question. What I thought that the question was — and this was my mind at the time — that there was an implication that politics intervenes with science. And, I always love the word choice. I’m for freedom of choice, I have in my health care plan a choice where everybody can keep their health care plan."

- Bill Richardson, explaining his answer to a question during Thursday's debate on gay issues, in which he said sexual orientation is a choice.

America's Team: The All-Presidential Small Forward

Our quest to shape the nation's ultimate basketball team out of its 43 presidents continues...

Today, we tackle the small forward position. The three spot is usually taken by a bruiser, someone a bit undersized, but with the tenaciousness and toughness to grab rebounds and play good defense. The ability to knock down the open jump shot, or take the ball to the hole is also necessary. Think Charles Barkley.

That's why we're going with the original rough rider, Teddy Roosevelt. TR was average height for his day (about 5' 8") but was powerfully built, and, despite being sickly as a child, developed into a good athlete, outdoors man, and soldier. He also showed his toughness by busting the oil and railroad trusts that dominated the late 19th century, and threatened American liberty.

Roosevelt is commonly acknowledged as being the most energetic figure of his era, which can probably be attributed to his extreme coffee habit (he drank about a gallon a day).

TR's Stats:

Height: 5' 8"
Weight: fluctuated, but about 190 lbs.
School: Harvard
Party: Republican
Nickname: TR, Teddy

So, our Presidential line up looks like this:

Point Guard: George Washington
Shooting Guard: John F. Kennedy
Small Forward: Theodore Roosevelt

Gay-bate

Last night the Democratic presidential candidates participated in a new kind of debate, one completely on gay issues, televised on the gay network, LOGO.

One by one they sat before a panel of gay leaders and answered questions that centered primarily on gay marriage, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and Don't ask/ Don't tell.

Of interest:

- Obama's compared his parents interracial relationship in the 60s to the challenges faced by gay couples today.

- Clinton's opposition to DOMA and don't ask don't tell, two of her husband's "accomplishments."

- Biden and Dodd didn't go.

- Richardson said he thought homosexuality was a choice.

- The GLBT group that ran the event tried to hold one for republicans, but no candidate agreed to participate.

America's Team: The All-Presidential Shooting Guard

Yesterday, SAM debuted a new segment: Compiling the greatest basketball team out of our 43 Presidents. We did point guard yesterday, so today it's on to two guard (or shooting guard).


Yesterday we cast George Washington as our point guard, largely because the general's selflessness would allow him to distribute the ball and make the team better.

But at the end of the day, you gotta put the ball in the basket. So our two- guard has got to do some scoring for us.

That's why we're going with (who else?) JFK.

There have been many presidents with solid (ah-hem) scoring ability, but Kennedy was the MJ of Presidential scoring. The rumors about his prowess are legendary (from Marilyn Monroe and beyond).

Also, remember, although Kennedy was plagued by health problems later in life, did letter in football in college.

Kennedy's stats:
35th President (1961- 1963)
School: Harvard
Height: 6'

So here's where we stand with America's Team:

Point Guard: George Washington
Shooting Guard: John Kennedy

Quote of the Day 8/9

Okay, I'm not sure if this is accurate or what. But IOL is reporting the following quote:

"I may re-enter politics at some point in the future because I'm only 59 years old... There is no single [current presidential] candidate that is putting forward a comprehensive argument about the environment or making climate change a priority."

- Al Gore

America's Team: The All-Presidential Point Guard

This is an exercise I started doing when bored in class back in high school (so I've had a lot of practice): to make the ultimate basketball team out of our 43 presidents. Now, let's make it official. SAM Online is going to pick the starting 5 of America's ultimate basketball team. Each day we'll try to tackle another position.

Today, let's start at the top, the 1 spot: Point Guard.

Our pick: George Washington

Stats:
1st President (1789-1797)
Party: Unaffiliated
Height: 6' 2"

Obviously we were going with a general here, because a point guard (or "floor general") has to lead his troops into basketball- battle. But when it comes to presidents there are a lot to choose from: Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, Dwight Eisenhower, US Grant. But is there any doubt which general will serve as America's one guard?

Standing at 6' 2" in the 17th century, GW would bring Magic Johnson- like versatility to the position. And then there's the key to any good point guard-- selflessness. A great point guard makes everyone around him better. He's not worried about piling up his own stats, but getting the wins and improving the team.

That's why GW is perfect. Washington served two very successful terms as president. He was the most famous and loved person in the new country, and could have served in its highest office for the rest of his life. Most of the country wanted him to, and nothing in the Constitution stopped him. But then he did the ultimate, and walked away.

When word of Washington's planned abdication reached England's King George III, the King whom Washington's Continental army had defeated in the American Revolution, said: "If he does that, he will truly be the greatest person in the world."

Power wasn't simply handed over like that, it changed hands through revolution and coups (and usually still does). But Washington proved his selflessness, and established a precedent of withdrawl every subsequent president followed (save the Roosevelts).

Unselfish play, leadership, and a big frame. George Washington: America's father and Point Guard on America's team.

Quote of the Day 8/6

"I had not heard of that"

- China's director of cultural activities on rumors that China has decided to pressure the Sudan to accept UN Peace keepers as a result of Steven Spielberg's threat to abandon his post as Artistic Advisor for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

China is far and away Sudan's largest trading partner, buying 65% of its oil, and had been very reluctant to pressure the country to accept UN security forces.

China, which as a rule doesn't mettle in the internal affairs of other countries (can you guess why?), made sure there would be no threat of sanctions against the Sudan. In exchange, the fledgling African Union peacekeeping force of 7000 will be supplemented with a force of 26000 UN police and security.

It's not clear how much influence Spielberg, who was under intense pressure from humanitarian groups, had in the matter; however, it is known that China desparately wants the Olympics to go as smoothly as possible. The entire city is undergoing a facelift, for what will be its, and to some extent China's, coming out party next summer.

GOP Presidential Debate

Over the weekend there was a Republican presidential debate in Iowa moderated by political correspondent George Stephanopoulos. Because I'm currently in London without access to a TV, I wasn't able to see the actual debate but I've since been able to watch much of it on-line. For those of you that may have missed the debate, I'll try to summarize some of the highlights:

There was a contentious exchange between Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback regarding a robo-call directed at Iowa voters that called into question Romney's pro-life position. The Brownback campaign has sponsored these calls that make reference to Romney's pro-choice positions that he held as governor of Massachusetts (Romney since has declared himself to be pro-life). In the debate Senator Brownback stood behind the robo-calls calling them "truthful" while Romney dismissed them as "negative" and "desperate". This abortion issue will likely follow Romney throughout the primaries however when considering that none of his major opponents Guliani, McCain (although fading fast), and potentially Fred Thompson are the favorites of social conservatives, the issue of Romney's 'flip-flop' may end up being a trivial matter. In fact out of the major contenders I still think that Romney probably best encompasses the traditional family values that the social conservatives hold in such high esteem, although it still remains to be seen how enthusiastically the Christian right will get behind a Mormon candidate.

McCain is still sticking to his uncompromising Iraq pro-war rhetoric. McCain insisted in the debate that "we are winning the war on the ground" and in essence that we will win because we have to win, etc., etc. Same thing he has said in the previous debates. No candidate is as vested in the War in Iraq as John McCain. If things significantly start to turn for the better in Iraq, McCain's candidacy could experience a resurgence. However if Iraq continues on its current course, it seems that McCain will continue to fade in this race. Also McCain is looking and speaking older and older which is to be expected for a guy who is about to turn 71. McCain looks more like someone running for condo board president of Del Boca Vista than a person running for President of the United States. It's too bad because I like John McCain, it just seems that 2000 was his chance.

Giuliani from what I saw performed well. In the wake of the bridge collapse in Minnesota and the ensuing reports of the general disrepair of our national infrastructure, Giuliani took on the issue and gave a well-tailored republican response that Karl Rove couldn't have scripted better himself. Giuliani acknowledge that we need to invest in our infrastructure and argued that if we continue to lower taxes the economy will grow which will in turn increase governmental revenue which he would then allocate to infrastructure repair. Classic Reaganomics or as George H.W. Bush would call "voodoo economics." Not to say that I agree with his propositions or conclusions, but Giuliani supported his argument with the apparently successful plan that he implemented to deal with the serious infrastructure issues that he faced as Mayor of New York. Whatever the merit of Giuliani's idea it sounded good regardless, especially to the republican electorate whose vote he is vying for.

My personal favorite line of the debate was John McCain's subtle conclusion in his response to the question of how he would delegate power to his Vice President after the prominent and controversial role of Dick Cheney. McCain said, "I'd be very careful that everyone knew there was one President." Well said.

According to latest poll conducted by ABC News in Iowa Romney leads with 26 percent, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 14 percent and Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tied at 8 percent, followed by Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo at 5 percent, former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson at 4 percent, Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 2 percent and California Rep. Duncan Hunter at 1 percent.

Also it should be noted that just 19% of likely GOP caucus attendees said they were "very satisfied" with the field of candidates (for the democrats that number is 53%). For what its worth Drudge report had linked an unofficial user poll posted by ABC on who won the debate, before the poll was taken down Ron Paul had tallied the most votes.

Quote of the Day 8/3

"What about our nation? How 'bout the USA? C'mon!"

- Michele Griffin, a waitress at the Red Arrow Diner in Manchester, NH. Michele reacted to an informal speech given by Mitt Romeny on "Healthcare Diplomacy"-- the exchange of medicines and other goods-- when asked about AIDS in Africa. Griffin, who had just been recounting her troubles with the health care system to a Washington Post reporter, seemed to boil over in frustration. She shouted out to Mitt, who was thrown off his script. He called her back, and the two had a lively exchange.

It's all on video. I think Mitt did a pretty good job, maybe a 6 out of 10. He doesn't get flustered, and he doesn't pander to her, but he fails to emotionally connect the way Bill Clinton would have. Check it out here.

Beyond Pertroleum?

In recent years British Petroleum (commonly referred to as BP) has presented itself as the oil company on the forefront of environmental awareness and stewardship. BP now proudly exalts itself as being "Beyond Petroleum" and has adopted a a new green/flower/sun looking logo that looks like something that you find on a Sierra Club brochure.

But unless "Beyond Petroleum" is a reference to pollutants like ammonia and industrial sludge, the British oil giant is not living up to its newly developed image. The BP oil refinery in Whiting, IN (just outside Chicago) has been authorized by state regulators to dump significantly more ammonia (54% increase) and sludge (34% increase) into Lake Michigan. In order to clear the way for a planned 3.8 billion dollar expansion of the refinery, BP will now be permitted to pollute the lake with an average of 1,584 pounds of ammonia and 4,925 pounds of sludge per day. The expansion will allow the refinery to process Canadian heavy crude oil (extracting petroleum from heavy crude oil is a dirtier process than conventional methods) and is expected to create 80 new jobs at the facility.

This level of increase in pollution is not an inherent consequence of the proposed expansion. The founder of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, Lee Botts, has said "We're not necessarily opposed to the project, but if they are investing all of these billions, they can surely afford to spend some more to protect the lake." BP has insisted that there isn't enough room at the 1,400 acre site to upgrade the water treatment plant which could limit the pollution increase. Federal and state regulators have agreed with BP on this issue.

Hold on for one second, I'm going to really try to think outside the box and attempt to come up with solution for this apparent site acreage constraint. This is going to sound completely crazy but what if BP in using its practically limitless financial resources acquired 50 adjacent acres of that prime Northwest Indiana real estate and constructed the water treatment plant there. A minor land acquisition deal, what a radical idea.

Fortunately the BP refinery issue has been noticed by politicians such as Chicago's mayor Daly who has wrote a personal letter to the governor of Indiana asking the state to reconsider its stance and has threatened a law suit (the EPA however at this point has said it would honor Indiana's approval). After the on-going efforts over the last thirty years to clean up Lake Michigan, Daly believes that "the idea of dumping now into the lake again is really unacceptable." These sentiments are shared by the members of the U.S. Congress who passed a resolution expressing disapproval of the plan for the Indiana BP refinery. The resolution passed by 387 in favor to only 26 not in favor of the resolution. Whether such wide spread and bi-partisan political opposition will be enough to derail this project remains to be seen. More information should come available in the coming months.

Iraq

I recently ran across this article written by the now deceased George Kennan about American-Soviet relations. It was written in 1951 and titled "America and the Russian Future." As it happened to turn out, the article was prophetic is predicting the demise of the Soviet Union. The reason I am writing about it in this blog is that it had an interesting passage regarding the future of the Soviet Union and how to deal with the collapse that Kennan correctly believed to be inevitable. Here is the passage:

"Forms of government are forged mainly in the fire of practice, not in the vacuum of theory. They respond to national character and to national realities. There is great good in the Russian national character, and the realities of that country scream out today for a form of administration more considerate of that good. Let us hope that it will come. But when Soviet power has run its course, or when its personalities and spirit begin to change (for the ultimate outcome could be one or the other), let us not hover nervously over the people who come after, applying litmus papers daily to their political complexions to find out whether they answer to our concept of 'democratic.' Give them time; let them be Russians; let them work out their internal problems in their own manner. The ways by which peoples advance toward dignity and enlightenment in government are things that constitute the deepest and most intimate processes of national life. There is nothing less understandable to foreigners, nothing in which foreign interference can do less good."

I wonder if this passage might have some relevance for the future of the war that is being waged in Iraq. Perhaps the ultimate outcome of the Iraqi state will look nothing like out governmental system but will still be able to solve problems in its own way. It has been my experience with Americans that we generally believe in universal principles that have application everywhere. It has also been my experience as a traveller that each culture solves problems differently. This is not to say that all methods of solution are equal- often they are not. Generally, systems that protect freedom of the individual and have strong legal systems in place to guard that freedom produce better intellectual discourse on government and, thereby, devise smarter solutions. It should be understood, however, that to judge any other governmental system one needs to take into account the people that produced the system. Nothing is more dangerous for foreign policy than to assume that our way is the only way and that all peoples should emulate US according to our own criteria.

Is their good in the Iraqi national character? I believe there is good but it needs time and peace to be brought out. Can the US provide that time and peace? I believe it is our duty as the country that overturned their previous government to provide Iraq with a chance for self-government.