Seahawks 2, Skins 0

Sadly, my fellow blogger's Skins are now Oh-for-Two over the last three years in the playoffs against my Hawks. In what may have been one of the more boring playoff games of recent memory (except for 3 minutes in the 4th quarter where the Skins rattled off 14 points and briefly took the lead), the Hawks defense made up for a poor offensive effort. Now it is back to the scene of Hasselbeck's "We want the ball, and we're gonna score gaff" from 2003 to play the Packers. Here's hoping something Romo-esque happens in Green Bay!

What is Mainstream Conservatism?

Power Line has an interesting take on the Iowa results, citing mainstream conservatism as the real loser on the Republican side. I'm wondering what mainstream conservatism is. Current conservatism in this country is an odd forced marriage of religious voters, fiscal and small government conservatives, and believes in strong national security with anti-immigrant voters throwing their weight around holding a position that is dangerously close to xenophobia.

Paul at Power Line laments that if only Congress and President Bush performed better and adhered to these values George Allen or Bill Frist would have a chance be president - putting these two forth as examples of true mainstream conservatives. The problem is that it is exactly because some Republicans identify conservatives as those who can check all the boxes (man of faith, fiscally responsible, anti-immigration, etc.) that we end up with "conservatives" that have failed us in the ways Hassert's congress and Bush's White House have failed us.

On a quick note, it is Allen frequent gaffes and inability to show any flashes of deep political thoughts that lost him his seat and a shot at the White House, not anyone else's failures. Frist's downfall began when he lost himself trying to please Christian Conservatives abandoning all sense of reason and made a medical diagnosis via cable TV in the case of Terry Schiavo.

Huckabee's flaws and positions make his victory a set back for the Republican Party, that hopefully will be limited to Iowa. However, Romney, Guiliani, and to a slightly lesser extent McCain represent what mainstream conservatism is, or at least must be. Rather than blind adherence to the varying doctrines of the conservative factions, true mainstream conservatism is about limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual choice as guiding principles.

Republicans don't need a conservative John Edwards or Nancy Pelosi, paying lip service and declaring absolute allegiance to the sacred cows of the extreme wings of the party.

Let's Party Like It's 1999!!!

As I watched Hillary Clinton's Iowa concession speech, I couldn't help but think of the eponymous Prince song that everyone waited 16 years to come appropriately use. Flanked by her husband and former Clinton administration members Wesley Clark and Madeleine Albright, her message of "rebirth" sounded more like "let's go back to the good old days and fight about the meaningless stuff we boomers used to fight about prior to 9/11. Let's go back to 1999!" Same old time warp rhetoric being espoused by Mrs. Clinton, even when it causes her to lose in Iowa. Perhaps that is because she has nothing in her own record to run on?

But then again, perhaps Bill actually wants to go back to 1992 as evidenced by his attempted spiking of the loss by noting his trail to the White House in 1992. Anticipating his wife's third place showing, Bubba tried to remind everyone that he didn't win a primary until they got to Georgia in 1992. In typical Clinton fashion, this is all selective memory. In the intervening 16 years, the primary system has become so compressed that losses in Iowa and NH can spell doom for a candidate, especially the presumptive front runner. Perhaps we are witnessing the Dean flameout of 2008?

Who knows what NH will have in store for us in the coming 5 days. We just know it is a whole new ball game after Iowa.

Iowa Part II: Who is Hillary Clinton Running Against

Watching Hillary Clinton's post-caucus speech in Iowa I was left wondering who her audience was. Flanked by beltway insiders Wesley Clark (Bill Clinton's NATO commander in Kosovo) and Madeleine Albright (Bill Clinton's Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton gave a speech that seemed much more appropriate for the hyper-partisan halls of the US Senate or the op-ed page of the New York Times than on the presidential primary trail.

Mirroring her campaign to date, she attacked specific positions of the Bush administration and stressed her ability to "restore the image of America" abroad. While Barrack Obama certainly hasn't shied away from attacking President Bush - this is the Democratic Primary after all - he has focused on how he will make things better and move forward, contrasting Clinton's desire to continue partisan fights of the last 8 years. Even when he attacks policies enacting by the Bush administration, he doesn't call out the President by name, he simply states how he'll perform better on that issue.

If nothing else, this just highlights her biggest weakness - she is completely tone deaf and unable to relate to the voters around her. Her speeches are about her - what she has done, what she helped (or watched) her husband do, and what she knows. Obama talks with people, not at them. Even looking at the little things, Clinton just doesn't get it.

Obama began his Iowa victory speech by clapping for his supporters and their victory, seeming very comfortable with the excitement in the crowd. He also had a very savvy line about how his supporters didn't "do this for him, they did it for them and the country." Clinton by contrast seemed uncomfortable with her supporters. She spoke far more about herself, and how she could/would win the Presidency while Obama talked about what they (he, his supporters, and the country) could accomplish together.

This is all anecdotal, but clearly Clinton's opportunity to win does not lie with her ability to connect with voters. Instead she'll need a top down approach relying on her connections to the Democratic political elite to organize and get voters out for her. Her beltway-insider rhetoric would certainly seem to play much better with this crowd.

It seems that to many of the DNC elite this election is a continuation of the fight against Bush from 2000 and 2004, with 2008 being a final chance to settle the score. This is certainly illustrated by the conduct of the Democratic Congress. After partially running on a platform of bipartisanship and civility, the new majority continued the dirty tricks that the GOP majority had used. While this brand of politics may appeal to some, it is clear that Obama's "politics of hope" resonate much better with the rank and file.

Clinton is banking on support from political insiders from her husband's administration, and those that hope to be insiders in her administration. Her problem is that as Obama gains more momentum, and appears more likely to win the nomination, the less likely DNC power hitters are stand behind Clinton.

What I find interesting is that the Iowa caucus is all about connecting with voters. It is very personal. Political capital and political operatives have far less of an impact than personality and "the politics of hope." This was true for both parties as Huckabee's brand of "the politics of hope," and his personal appeal to the Iowa Republican voters trumped Romney's money and well organized team.

Therefore, why didn't Clinton skip Iowa? One of her advisers certainly thought it was a good idea. In addition to her inability to connect with voters, her politics don't match the local sentiment in Iowa either. Leaving Iowa would certainly have dented the image she has tried to present that she has been anointed the next President of the United States, but certainly her third-place finish isn't going to help either.

One last interesting note. Clinton has always promoted herself as the most electable candidate in a general election and subtly reiterated this assertion in her "concession" speech Thursday night in Iowa. MSNBC polls from Iowa do give Clinton the edge over Obama among voters for whom electability with the top issue (Edwards got the highest marks in this category). However only 8% of caucus goers fell into this category while the majority stated that change was the most important issue, and this majority overwhelming voted Obama. Also, while it could be limited to Iowa, Obama had a big lead among Independents and first time caucus goers indicating that he is generating excitement which could attract swing voters and get people to the polls in a general election.

Iowa . . .

What do tonight's results mean?

Looking at the results since '76 the winner of the Iowa caucus does have a good chance to go on to win.

On the Dem side - Since '76 only Harkin in '92 and Gephardt in '88 won Iowa but not the nomination. However, both had a big home field advantage with Harkin representing Iowa and Gephardt coming from neighboring Missouri.

On the GOP side - Bob Dole beat George HW Bush in '88 but Bush was the sitting VP giving him an edge overall and Bush only narrowly edged out Reagan in 1980.

However, given the craziness we have already witnessed in this election cycle, it seems unlikely that there are any great lessons to learn from Iowa. While Obama may go on to win the nomination, Clinton has way too many loyalists among the liberal political elite for them to simply follow the popular sentiments of Iowas friendly farmers.

Despite the unprecedented number of political operatives on the ground in Iowa, the caucus still gives the appearance of a civic and personal affair as Iowans focus on civility and personality. As the primaries go national, Clinton will raise the stakes with more hardball politics that will play better among the political elite of New Hampshire, California, and NY.

In Iowa, Obama beat Clinton with personality, positivity, and constructive optimism on how to fix the problems affecting Iowa voters. Clinton ran a far more Washington campaign with a large political machine, a focus on numbers and experience, and repeated inside-the-beltway style partisan attacks on President Bush's policies. While this strategy will play better in NH than Iowa, Obama's momentum and more positive message could easily carry him to victory.

On the GOP side, Huckabee's campaign seemed ideal for Iowa. He is affable, has an everyman quality and appealed to the evangelical Christians that early numbers indicate dominated the polls. While the primaries Southern swing will also benefit Huckabee, he's in for a much rougher ride for numerous reasons.

To begin with, his rise in popularity occurred late and was focused on his down-to-earth personality. This sparred him the media scrutiny suffered by Romney and Guiliani. Going forward there will be a much greater focus not only on who Huckabee is but also what his record is. Already, Rush Limbaugh has attacked Huckabee's conservative credentials. It is likley that this will only get worse as the party elite that backed Bush's 2000 run worry about the political agenda Huckabee will bring with him. While the Iowa voters are mostly concerned with values of faith, this alone will not be enough to carry him if he has a weak grasp on foreign policy, and seems unlikely to recommit Republicans to fiscal restraint and a furtherance of President Bush's conservative economic philosophy and tax cuts.

The liberal democracy conundrum

I just finished reading 700 pages about Islamic fundamentalism over the last three weeks. The first book, The Looming Tower, chronicles the rise of Al-Qaeda, while the book While Europe Slept details the challenge Europe faces in its rising Islamic immigrant population. Both clearly articulate why no matter what offenses the radical Islamists claim, their irrational response is just that - an irrational one that must not be entertained or tolerated. Both books provided great insight into the wider meaning of two events that occurred this week - one reported by every media outlet (the assassination of Benazir Bhutto) and another reported only in the British media (the expulsion of British officials from Afghanistan).

Ultimately, the Bhutto assassination is only the latest display of the obvious desires of Islamic extremists that democracy, women's rights, and those who believe their philosophy is a poison on earth must be eliminated. Bhutto, although an early backer of groups like the Taliban in the misguided belief that stability equaled peace, had eventually realized the threat of Islamic terrorists and their anti-modern beliefs. Bhutto's clear championing of the anti-terrorist message and her status as a powerful woman in Pakistani made her a visible target of choice - her death was inevitable. Countries like Pakistan have a much more challenging road to democracy than Western democracies had. There is a substantial minority within their own population that fear educated women, societies where gays are not murdered, and where thieves don't get their hands chopped off.

Even more troubling than Bhutto's assassination is the expulsion of two UK "diplomats" for engaging the Taliban in Afghanistan. In the typical lack of understanding of non-European cultures, the typical response to this expulsion by UK officials is much along the line of UN spokesman Aleem Siddique:
"Mr Siddique said the aim of the talks was 'to understand from the people on the ground what their needs are, what their concerns are and that includes people who are perhaps less than supportive of the government of Afghanistan.' "
The Taliban is "less than supportive of the government of Afghanistan"? That's like saying the KKK is less than supportive of African-Americans' civil rights. While Europe should be commended for learning from the destruction of the two World Wars and the Cold War, they should also recognized the limited number of people on earth that are so enlightened. Discussing, negotiating, and tolerating people who only despise you, find lying to you and raping your women as non-objectionable, and only want the destruction of your liberal democracy is not a recipe for maintaining such democracies. Reading this drivel made me frimly believe the worst examples given in While Europe Slept.

Ultimately, Western democracies and moderate Muslims must recognize that there must be limits to their tolerance. Liberal democracies don't have to tolerate those who wish to destroy them - from within or from another country. To do so invites one of two disasters - either destruction from such enemies of democracy, or from the response to such tolerance withing their own citizenry (often in the form of fascism). Reasonable minded democrats can clearly draw a line in the sand, welcoming the vast majority of Muslims who value our pluralistic democracies while advocating the destruction of those within the Muslim community that distort their supposed religion. If they cannot stand up to such irrationality, they will surely succumb to it.

The Day the V8 Died

It is well known in my circle of friends that while I am employed in an engineering profession, I also have a good deal of interest in politics and public policy. A number of years ago, when I was still in school, my father bought a book for me entitled Beyond Engineering: How Society Shapes Technology. While the concept is not new, the detail with which the author explains how some of the most indirect policy decisions can affect the whole course of a certain technology's development path is new. Things that we take for granted, like the internet and the microprocessor, and we suspect are great technological achievements of the "free market" are actually the product of heavy investment by the government that helped an immature market that could not survive by free market principles alone. While we often recognize how much technology can change society, we often don't fully recognize how much society can change technology.
An interesting case study can be found in the automotive industry. Few industries are as heavily regulated and require as much innovation in a short period of time as the automotive industry. What started as a vehicle occupant safety crusade via Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed has now spawned into an entire industry of regulation that shaped most of the major technological breakthroughs in the last 30 years of automaking. The catalytic converter, air bags, roll stability control, engines with variable valve timing, exhaust gas recirculation, electronic fuel injection, crumple zones, lightweight materials, 3 point harnesses for all passengers, anti-lock brakes, and on board diagnostic systems (that troublesome "check engine light") are all either a direct response to regulations or the spirit of the regulations (often the case with safety innovations).
So it is with much sadness that the American public should know that they have 13 years to buy V8 engines and then bid them farewell. President Bush signed a bill on November 19th that will require all automakers to achieve 35 miles per gallon (fleet average) by 2020. To give some perspective to this requirement, the current requirement is 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for trucks and SUV's. While the increased cost of fuel has certainly driven more consumers to fuel efficient vehicles, they are still buying V8's and V6's that get well below the current average. The purchases of those engines are offset by automakers selling smaller, 4-cylinder powered cars at production costs or a loss. And this last point is the key to why, in this case, the governments regulation of fuel economy is not addressing the root cause of the problem - automakers are being forced to sell a product that consumers don't want to satisfy a fuel economy target that consumers don't want to achieve. But when the target shifts from 27 mpg to 35 mpg this will no longer be an option - their simplify aren't enough consumers willing to buy 50+ mpg cars to offset 20 mpg or less V8-powered vehicles.
What is really driving the purchases of V6's and V8's that lower our national fuel efficiency? The continued access to relatively inexpensive fuel, even with $3 per gallon gasoline. Europeans pay between $6 and $7 per gallon of fuel, and the result is much better fuel
economy than we have here in the states (see graph below). Ultimately, the effects of the fuel tax go well beyond the design of the vehicles and how well they do on the standard fuel economy tests. Paying $6 per gallon of gasoline also encourages drivers to accelerate slowly, brake earlier, and take mass transit or walk more often - all behaviors that cut down on fuel consumption and pollution in the real world and not just on some laboratory test.
So while some might hail this week's passage of the new fuel economy bill as being a landmark, it is one only because it continues the behavior of the American public to pass the buck for their gluttonous behavior to the companies that are only making vehicles that the American public wants to buy. The right thing to do would be to force the American public to take a long, hard look in the mirror for the true source of gas guzzler vehicle purchases, and to change the behavior by instituting a European style fuel tax. The revenues from such a tax could be poured back into mass transit, alleviating some of the effects of higher transportation costs.