The Morning After ... Blues

 As we write, the newsboys are standing on the corners shouting, "Wuxtry! Read all about it! Blue wave swamps billionaires' yacht! Getcha morning paper!"

Which is to say the the November 2025 election appears to be good news for the Democratic Party and correspondingly bad for the Republicans. This appearance is purely arithmetical, in the sense that it is attested by votes counted and estimated. While no doubt encouraging, it is by no means clear -- nor could it be at this preliminary stage -- that the results will actually conduce to strengthening the Democratic Party or weakening the grip of Trumpism on America.

Two of the most heralded victories of the moment, for example, are those of Zohran Mamdani in New York City and Abigail Spanberger in Virginia.  Neither of these is surprising in itself. Mamdani was the Democratic nominee in a city where Democrats enjoy a powerful historic advantage, notwithstanding the Giuliani years. Spanberger was the Democratic nominee in a state where governors must stand down after a single term, and are most often chosen from the party that does not hold the White House. (She was also running against a Black woman in the South.) So neither victory was inherently unpredictable.

The more interesting point, as pundits observed often during the campaign, is that these are two very different varieties of Democrat. New York's mayor-elect is conspicuously young for the job, at 34. Although born in Africa, he was raised in the cushiest and New-Yorkest of confines, among the Upper West Side's academic and artistic elites.  His politics certainly lean left, as reflected by his decade-long affiliation with the Democratic Socialists. He is a Muslim. Also -- and perhaps most interesting to both readers of this blog -- he worked on the unsuccessful 2017 campaign of our friend and seminary classmate, the Rev. Khader El-Yateem.

Spanberger is 12 years older than Mamdani. In matters of faith, she is something called "Protestant Unspecified," which we imagine means as religious as her constituents need her to be in the moment. Born in New Jersey but raised in Virginia, with a background in federal law enforcement and intelligence, she has cut a considerably more conservative pose. After the Dems' 2020 election losses, she famously argued that they had suffered because Republicans were able to accuse them of "socialism," as well as because of the poorly-phrased call to "defund the police." She went so far as to propose that no Democrat should ever use the word "socialist" again.

Clearly, these two Democrats are shaped differently, both by their life experience and by the constituencies they serve. While it is certainly true that America's two principal parties are by nature complex and often unwieldy coalitions, it is also fair to ask how easily these two leaders, or their respective supporters, will be able to collaborate on policy and governance.  This is not a new question; the co-existence of conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats is as old as the party. But in a time when Republicans are so very ascendant, and so very averse to be caught compromising with the other party, it will be impossible for Democrats to make headway except by working closely with each other, even when their convictions and constituencies differ deeply.

Looking for analogies on the other side of the aisle, we recall that the Paleo-Cons and Neo-Cons of old managed reasonably well despite some fundamental differences. Yes, the Tea Party was the bane of John Boehner's life, but he was also able to make common cause with them against the ACA, and even to promote the career of a TP leader.  More recently, though, there appears to be an impassible chasm between the radical Republicans aligned with President Trump and virtually the entirety of the party's old guard.  Even the late Dick Cheney, than whom few Republican leaders could be called more Republican, and whom this blog pilloried with zeal during his vice-presidency, cast his last vote for a Democrat. 

Put plainly, Republicans unwilling to endorse both Trump's extreme policies and his chaotic personal style find themselves as impotent at the moment as Democrats, if not more so. Democrats are feeling good indeed this morning, as well they might -- but their ability to continue feeling good, and above all to govern effectively, may come to depend on their ability to do what the Republicans currently cannot and do not need to: work closely even when they disagree.

Team Adultery Goes Big

So the president-elect, having been scared away from TV dad Mitt Romney by a public tongue-lashing from his loose-cannon campaign manager, is now considering David Petraeus for Secretary of State.

Petraeus isn't an absurd choice. Generals, even disgraced former ones, do a lot of work that is or approaches diplomacy. And to be honest, we are always a little worried by the way Secretaries of State seem hawkish by comparison to their peers at Defense; a military professional might bring a better sense of why the big stick is a dangerous negotiating tool.

But let's get back to those key words "former" and "disgraced," because they are highly relevant. Lest anyone forget, Bloomberg News reminds us that Petraeus

... left government under a cloud for sharing classified documents during an extramarital affair....

These are grave offenses, and they are not in dispute. Although Trump the campaigner made it sound as though Petraeus had done little by comparison to the putative security breaches of Secretary Clinton, a more objective conclusion is just the reverse. FBI Director James Comey, no friend to Clinton, described Petraeus as prosecutable where Clinton was not:

 Comey, who oversaw both the Petraeus and Clinton investigations [said in] a July 7 hearing, he told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that Petraeus’s behavior was worse than Clinton’s, saying that he deliberately “lied” when first questioned by investigators.

“So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information” that was highly classified, Comey said. “He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted.”

Well. That says a great deal. "No reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against Clinton, where Petraeus committed precisely the sort of crimes that should have been prosecuted. (Petraeus copped a plea and, as Bloomberg notes, would be the rare Cabinet member to serve the President while still on probation.)

Moreover, there is the adultery question. Like Trump and his cronies Giuliani and Gingrich, Petraeus has betrayed his marriage vows. As we pointed out at the time, this alone is a prosecutable crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and not without good reason. An adulterer makes himself (or herself) susceptible to influence and blackmail. Had the general's paramour been a foreign agent, agent, the classified information he revealed to her might well have led directly to the death of American soldiers, or a compromise of American interests.

This is not, to say the least, a stirring recommendation for a top diplomat.

Now, here is the thing. People inclined to dismiss adultery as Giuliani has -- "everybody does it," and to privatize it by saying "I confess that to my priest" -- don't see the Petraeus case as anything especially grave. That is because they fail to grasp the central point of Christian moral philosophy, which is that we do not exist merely as individuals, but as a community. One person's sin does not merely harm himself and his relationship to God, but harms all of society.  This is true even of occult sins, but more demonstrably so of gross public ones.
The early penitential tradition was far more concerned with the latter than with the former; our earliest records indicate a very public process of confession before, dismissal from, and restoration to, the Christian community.  Well into the Middle Ages (and beyond), Church leaders distinguished themselves for holding political figures accountable to the community for their moral lapses.  Think of Ambrose demanding penance from Theodosius or, with a bit more moral ambiguity but no less drama, the German king standing prayerfully in the snow at Canossa.

Let's not push the moral point too far.  Petraeus is not asking to be admitted to Holy Communion; he is asking for another government job.  The question before Mr. Trump, and the rest of us, is not whether Petraeus is repentant, but whether he is competent.  We have little doubt that Petraeus is intellectually competent -- he is by most reports brilliant.  But competence extends to more than mere intellect.  A figure who, when trusted with enormously high office, has criminally abused the public trust in ways that have exposed himself to potential blackmail and those under his command to far worse is not, by our old-fashioned way of thinking, a great candidate for still-higher office.

But that line of reasoning only makes sense if you understand just why adultery is bad, and we are not convinced that Mr. Trump, or many of those around him, do understand this.

Team Adultery Fights Back

The Republican Party is having none of your pantywaist "family values" rhetoric.  Frankly, that whole "self-control" business, the old fatherly advice to "keep it in your pants" -- that stuff is just repression.  Haven't the Dems ever even heard of Sigmund Freud?

If it were not already clear, this morning's news offered proof positive that the GOP stands for a proud, masculine ethic of uninhibited and unembarrassed sexuality.  For men.  Women are still encouraged to smile demurely and pretend they don't know the naughty words.

You see, Newt Gingrich went on TV to defend the Republican nominee, and when Megyn Kelly asked him about the many recent claims of sexual harassment against Donald Trump, Gingrich accused her of being -- wait for it -- "fascinated with sex."

Savor the moment.  Here is Gingrich, a  serial adulterer, defending Trump, another serial adulterer, and accusing a reporter of being sexually compulsive.  Both men have repeatedly disregarded their vows and destroyed their marriages in pursuit of the next erotic thrill.  So has Trump's other most vocal surrogate these days, Rudolph "Divorced His Second Wife on TV" Giuliani.  All three present themselves as burly men's men, the kind who stand around in locker rooms bragging about how much women love their attention before they hit the courts (or links, or whatever).  Never mind that in reality they are fat balding senior citizens with prostate problems whose unreconstructed understanding of masculinity makes Don Draper look positively enlightened.

But Kelly is the one fascinated by sex.  because she does her job, and pursues relevant questions about the temperament, behavior and truthfulness of a presidential candidate.

Double-standard, anyone?

[Insert Weiner Joke Here]

In July of 2011, Anthony Weiner, an extremely fit-looking congressman from New York, resigned in disgrace.  After the revelation that he had been exchanging sexy text messages (including naughty pictures) with women other than his wife, Weiner had lied for more than a week in efforts to protect himself.  In May 2013, less than two years after his resignation, Weiner announced his intention to run for mayor of New York City.  This struck many of us as a remarkable display of chutzpah.

Now, in July 2013, he is embroiled in accusations of further sexting activity, with at least one woman to whom he is not married.  Then details are unclear.  Last we heard, Weiner's office had admitted that "some" of the messages were authentic; what remains to be seen is whether

Some people say, in essence, "This is between him and his wife."  We disagree.  The guy is a liar and a cheat.  Worse than that, he seems to lack the sort of self-discipline that is required for effective, long-term leadership, especially in a high-pressure position.

Yes, it is true that many effective politicians -- FDR, Ike, JFK and LBJ make four in a row -- were less than faithful to their wives.  And one takes for granted that politicians are liars as a class.  Still, Weiner looks like an addict to us, a man powerless over his own compulsions.  We predict that the sex scandals of a Weiner mayoralty would make those of Rudolph Giuliani's tenure pale by comparison.  (And Giuliani, lest we forget, announced his divorce to the media before telling his wife, whom he then kicked out of the house.)

Even if the serendipitous combination of his name and his most famous selfie were not a joke by itself, his campaign certainly would be.  Seriously, New York -- don't vote for this guy.

[P.S.:  Eliot Spitzer may not be quite as compulsive as Weiner, and comptroller isn't quite as tough a job as mayor.  But don't vote for him either.  Unless you're a high-rent hooker, in which case this guy is your best friend.]

Newt Wanted a Chevy

But he was married to a Jaguar.

Basically, we all know that Newt Gingrich is the sort of politician who makes a lot of noise about virtue, honor and family, while living lives of vice that bring shame to their families. Anybody who has followed Newt's career already knows that he is a serial adulterer, and humiliator of wives, in the Giuliani mold. But where Giuliani simply despises the teachings of the church in which he was raised, Gingrich has actually chosen to enter the Roman Catholic church, as if to highlight his lifelong mockery of its moral teaching.

But for those who doubted, his second wife, Marianne, has given an interview to Esquire. It's woven into a long and unflattering portrait, well worth a quick read, but a few choice bits deserve to be shared.

For example, the relationship between Gingrich and Bill Clinton:

[Newt recalls:] "Clinton and I used to talk like it was a graduate-school session," he says. "We both like books, we both like ideas, we both like exploring language and exploring concepts and trying to find solutions."

But then in 1998, Monica Lewinsky exploded and war broke out between the parties. Of all the ironies in Gingrich's paradoxical career, this was certainly the most bitter — at the very moment when he tried to rise above the ugly partisanship he had done so much to foster, it dragged him back down. ...

One night, Marianne says, Bill Clinton called from the White House. She answered the phone and the president asked if he could please speak to her husband. Could the Speaker come over immediately? After he hung up, Newt summoned his driver and went in the back door to the Oval Office. During that meeting, he would tell her later, Clinton laid it out for him: "You're a lot like me," he told him.

Whatever else happened at that meeting, Newt Gingrich was muzzled in the critical run-up to the '98 midterms.

Someday, that late-night meeting will make a great scene in a TV movie.

But the part that grips us, from our clerical perspective, is the picture of the couple as their marriage dissolves, and they seek pastoral counseling:

She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. " 'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.' "

He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused....[But he] told the press that he and Marianne had an understanding.

"Right," Marianne says now.

That was not true?

"Of course not. It's silly."

During that period, people would come up to Marianne and tell her to settle, that she was hurting the cause.

All of this simply proves some awfully common folk wisdom. This one: Politicians are lying cheating dogs. Or this one: If, like Marianne, you are having an affair with a married man, and he says he'll leave his wife for you, one of two things is true: (a) he won't; or, (b) he will, and then he will leave you for the next one. Or maybe this one: Newt Gingrich is a dirtball with no place in American public life.

On the Subject of Narcissistic Hypocritical Blowhards

(See our own comments to the previous post)

Rudy Giuliani is still thinking about a run for the Senate.  Apparently, polls show that he could beat Kirsten Gillibrand (also know as "Who?") in a race for her seat, but would lose to Andrew Cuomo in a duel for the governorship.

Giuliania, for those who have forgotten, is a thrice-married serial adulterer who publicly humiliated his last wife and whose own children would not support his abortive run for the presidency.  And -- having accidentally dropped the image of abortion -- we may as well mention that he has waffled on this, as he has on various other matters of (homo)sexuality, playing liberal to the hometown crowd and conservative to the national one.

Yes, the same Giuliani who, as mayor of New York, made the brilliant decision to override recommendations from law-enforcement professionals and locate his emergency command post not in an inconspicuous Brooklyn warehouse, but in the World Trade Center -- the only building in America, up to that time, to have been successfully targeted by foreign terrorists.

He also promoted his old pal Bernie Kerik to be the Homeland Security advisor.  You know, Bernie Kerik -- who has since become the first NYC police commissioner ever sent to jail, the one who has since pled guilty on corruption charges which have cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and will now send him to prison for years.

We're not saying Giuliani is an amoral unprincipled power-mad thug with incredibly poor judgment.  We're just saying -- oh, right.  We are saying those things.

Veep Debate

Whew.  Thought there would be an ad break or two.  For those who missed it, here is a quick rundown, typed while it happened.

9:02 -- She really is pretty.  "Hey, can I call you Joe?"  Hell, she can call me Joe.

:03-- Worst or best of DC?

Biden:  Blames Bush for economic policies.  Fair enough by us.  OTOH, Congress hasn't exactly been "put in a tough spot."  Makes Obama sound like an MBA for minute.  Beats an ideologue.

Palin:  Soccer moms!  Apparently, they've figured out that we're in trouble.  Canaries in the coal mine.  Blames "Federal Government," claims McCain was out ahead on this with Freddie/Fannie "reform bill."  Praises him for "suspending".

:07 -- Can Veep reduce polarization?

Biden says he's been doing it whole career.  But ... it's gotten worse during his whole career.  So he goes back to beating up McCain on economy.

Her response is to defend mcCain on "fundamentals."  Team of mavericks, claims she's known for putting partisanship aside -- ummm, how?  Then a dig at Biden's "years in senate."  And !@#$% "maverick" again.

09 -- Ifill calls non-responsive, moves on to mortgage crisis.  Promises to come back to it.  Never does.

Palin: blames predatory lenders, corruption on Wall Street.  Is corruption per se really the issue?  As in lawbreaking?

Biden: blames deregulation, and talks about McCain's experience w/ same.  Great bit about desire to deregulate healthcare on banking model -- is it true?  Palin wants to turn it into  a meaningless discussion of taxes, but  does make one interesting point -- McCain has also been pretty involved in regulation, which is why so many conservatives hate him.  But she's just silly on that 2-yr-old procedural thing that McCain dragged out last time, and Biden swats her down.  Gently.

The baby cries, and I lose the ability to keep time.  Hey, it's live internet.

"I may not answer the questions the way the moderator or you want to hear" -- what the hell does that mean?  Ah, she cut taxes, and wants to brag, even though its off-point.  (Did she?)

So on to taxes:  Why isn't Obama's plan class warfare, McCain's dumping on poor?

Biden:  Bush tax cuts are going to the rich, Obama's to the middle class.  Worth repeating, and it is simple fairness, isn't it?  "This is not punitive" -- even though that's how most people seem to see all taxation.  Nice bit about doing just as well as they did under Reagan.

Palin:  Less job creation!  Taxes aren't patriotic -- see?  Government is the problem!  (Why won't people who think that stay out of government?  They stink at it).  But has to be reminded to talk about the health-care plan, which is a lame-o $5000 credit.  (Tell that to your oncologist or surgeon, who charge as much for one procedure).  Oh, and misrepresents Obama's plan.

Biden:  Reminds us that the really small businesses don't get tax increases.  Then great argument about McCain's tax deduction -- is a tax on the insured that is paid directly to insurance companies.  (Can that possibly be true?  What a lousy plan, if it is. A "Bridge to nowhere" -- nice dig.)

Next:  Promises you'll have to break?

Biden:  Foreign assistance won't double.  Then, weirdly, says he won't support McCain's policies.  Uh, yeah.  We thought that already.  Then, like Obama, talks about all the stuff he won't change on.  Um, yeah.  Non-responsive.  

Palin:  McCain has character!  (Tell his first wife).  Obama voted for tax breaks for oil companies, and she claims that she -- what?  Rescinded them?  Who knows.  She broke up a monopoly?  Which one -- only McCain is old enough to remember Standard Oil.  (What precisely is she saying she did?  What precisely does this have to do with the question?)

Ifill:  "So ... nothing?"  Palin says that's right, because I haven't promised anything yet.  Complete waste of airtime.

Biden:  Okay, back to taxes.  Alternative energy; and hey, about McCain's budget -- why is he cutting oil company taxes more?  But he knows what she actually did in Alaska -- windfall profits tax that she imposed and McCain opposes.  Nice maneuver -- using the facts.

Next:  Making bankruptcy harder.  McCain supported it -- do you?  Oh, and Biden did, Obama didn't.

Palin:  Yes, but, ahem, um, it was different 2 years ago, and McCain warned us.  (Which is meaningless.  He still wants to punish the bankrupt.)

Biden:  Obama and I disagreed.  And Obama knew about the crisis 2 years ago!  We've done this already.  But he wants bankruptcy courts to have the power to change your debt principal -- holy cow, that's intense.  Anyway, claims McCain and Palin oppose it.

Ifill:  Is that so?

Palin:  That is not so.  Now let's talk about something else -- energy!  We need energy independence!  My God, the terrorists are selling us oil!

Next:  Energy and climate change.

Palin:  Hey, we've got that.  Did you know I'm from Alaska? But Man may have done some of the damage, and then some damage is "cyclical," and I don't care about the causes. Let's just talk about what we can do to clean it up.  (Um, yeah.  Without understanding the cause?)  Hey -- if we were energy independent, that would somehow keep China from polluting with all the cheaper oil ... what was I saying again?

Biden:  It's manmade.  Clearly manmade.  "If you don't understand the cause, it's impossible to come up with a solution."  So he cites some facts.  We like facts.  More alternative energy, then export the tech to China to clean them up.  (Could that have been what Palin meant?  Or was she just blathering?)

Next:  Cap and trade, clean coal.

Palin:  Drill, baby drill.  (So ... not so big into alternative energy, just alternative wells?)  Says the Dems have said no to everything, called drilling "raping the continental shelf."  Oh, okay, she does want alternatives, like "nuke-you-lar."  And she supports cap and trade.

Biden:  Hard targets on clean coal for 20 years, something abut China.  So why does McCain keep voting against funding alternative energy?  (Repeat)

Same-sex benefits to couples -- like Alaska?

Biden:  Yup.  Gives examples, but answer is clear and unambiguous.

Palin:  No.  It might redefine marriage.  But she is tolerant.  Umm ... so?  She won't prohibit certain rights, but wants to make it about ....  (Wait.  she's the governor of Alaska.  Shouldn't she support her own state's policy?  My head hurts.)

Same-sex marriage?

Biden:  No.  let your own damn church decide.  But as to rights under law, Palin agrees with me.

Palin:  No.  (But again avoids some details of question.)

Iraq exit strategy?

Palin:  We've got one!  The surge!  Petraueus and McCain invented it -- Note to Self:  remember not to mention POTUS.  Oooh -- reminds Biden that he argued with Obama about this.  Anyway, we've got to win in Iraq in order to win in Afghanistan.  Hey, she knows who the Shi'ia are.

Biden:  Shift responsibility and draw down troops over 16 months, just like Bush is starting to say but McCain won't.  And, yet again, he knows more about the details of the vote she's talking about.  "We will end this war -- for John M., there is no end in sight."

Palin:  Calls him chicken.  We'll stand down when they stand up.  Never mind the ongoing negotiations and express will of the Iraqi government. Reminds him of some more times he and Obama disagreed.

Biden:  McCain also voted to cut off funding for the troops -- specifically a lot of $ for M-RAPS.  Brings up McCain and Cheney and the absurd idea that the war would be fast and cheap.

Nuclear Iran and unstable Pakistan:  Which is worse?

Biden:  Both bad.  Pakistan has nukes; Iran isn't close.  Both are "game-changers."  And hey -- McCain still thinks an attack will come from Iraq, but we all know it will really come from the Pakistani-Afghan border.  We need to get our tails in there and (a) build schools, (b) kill OBL.

Palin:  No, no, no -- Petraeus and the Iraqis say it's Iraq, so it must be Iraq.  She can pronounce "Ahmadinejad," and considers him "neither sane nor stable."  (Does McCain really want to launch a preemptive strike on those guys? And how badly?)  Anyway, on to negotiating without preconditions.  Again.

Secretaries of State who all want us to engage with enemies.

Palin:  I met Kissinger!  He likes diplomacy!  But not with dictators who hate our freedoms and our respect for women's rights.  

Biden:  You misrepresent Obama.  And you guys do know Ahmedinejad doesn't control the security apparatus, right?  And you know that our friends and allies, the ones you want to drag along into a  negotiation, have been begging us to negotiate?  Picks on McCain for not negotiating with Spain.  (What WAS that Spain thing about?)

Israel/Palestine:  What have we done, done wrong, and is 2-state the way to go?

Palin:  Yes.  2-state.  But no 2nd Holocaust.  (Well.  That's revolutionary).

Biden:  I love Israel!  So does Obama!  But you asked about this administration -- "an abject failure."  Gives examples.  We like facts.  Especially all the "we-told-you-sos."  And we don't like Iran either, and I know more about it than she does.

Ifill:  Abject failure?

Palin:  No!  Bush Administration has made huge blunders, but shouldn't be blamed.  All this talk about the past makes us wonder if you care about the future.  (Wtf?  Can she name anything Bush did right?  She certainly isn't trying.)

Biden:  Will McCain's policy be different than Bush's?  I haven't heard ... (Long list of things he hasn't heard McCain differentiate from Bush.  He memorized this stuff way in advance.  Still, it sounds good.)

Interventionism and Nukes:  When do we push the button?

Palin:  Our enemies should never have the chance.  We have a deterrent, and that's "safe and stable."  Sure.  Again, she doesn't answer the question.  And then moves on to Afghanistan -- where McCain promises to be different from Bush because he'll implement ... a surge.

Biden:  1.  Afghanistan:  the commander said today that the surge principles used in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan.  We need more troops, more $ on infrastructure.  (Not sure about difference.)  2.  Back to nukes -- we need a test-ban treaty, and McCain voted against it.  Obamam and Lugar worked on it,

Palin:  McClellan did not say that!  Did not!  (Yes, she calls him McClellan, which was actually a Civil War general.)

Biden:  Yes he did.  (So, let's check this later, shall we?)  Anyway, McCain considered Afghanistan over and done with 2 years ago, and wouldn't let us spend money on it.

Interventionism.  Can the public stomach it?

Biden:  If we succeed.  (Hey -- he saw the first ten minutes of "Patton.")  Bosnia was  limited success; I voted for Iraq b/c Bush told me it was about giving sanctions teeth.  And we need to intervene in Darfur.

Palin:  I'm an outsider, silly.  You flip-flopped on the war -- for it before you were against it.  And you've gone soft since you got into the Veep race.  We agree on Darfur.  Hey, I'm the governor of Alaska -- we divested from Sudan.  That's like a war, right?  Except it hasn't passed yet.

Ifill:  So what's the line?  For when we go in?

Biden:  Can we win?  And how bad are they -- like genocide?  Then more about Iraq, and how Cheney screwed it up and mcCain supported Cheney.

Palin:  You're a liar.  McCain knows how to win a war (And again we ask:  How?  And why won't he tell us before we elect him?)  She says it again.

Next:  How would you govern if you had to, given differences from principles?

Biden:  God forbid.  But I would carry out his policies -- break for middle class, health, tax, college, energy, Iraq.  And on and on.  "In essence I agree with every major initiative."

Palin:  Team of mavericks!  Push him on ANWR.  He wants debate to make good policy.  But, ahem, I would continue his good work, especially fighting greed and corruption on Wall St., make it more like Wasilla Main St.  "Government, get out of my way!"

Biden:  I go to Home Depot.  And everybody I know is poorer than they were 8 years ago.  So where does McCain differ from Bush?  Go to my old neighborhood.  Or Scranton.

Palin:  You're talking about the past again!  Let's tell people what we want to do.  Ramp up the schools -- with funding.  Love the 3rd graders.  So let's "increase the standards," but "emphasize the profession of teaching."

Next:  One of you didn't know what the Veep did, the other didn't want it.

Palin:  My "jke" didnt work.  Neither did yours, Joe.  Constitution would permit a bit MORE authority given to Veep "in working with the Senate."  What???  Special needs children, just like the Constitution says.

Biden:  Hey, about education --  John doesn't support it.  Back to the Veepship:  Point person for initiatives in Congress; no portfolio; but give advice on major decisions.

Ifill:  Palin, what branch is the Veep in?

Palin:  Well, it's flexible.  We'll do what's best for the people in ushering an agenda.  "So, um, yeah, I do agree with [Cheney]...."  Oh, and did I mention I'm an executive?  <--- SCARIEST PART OF THE WHOLE DEBATE.   She agrees about Cheney's insane theory.

Biden:  Cheney is the most dangerous Veep in history.  He doesn't read the Constitution.  "Bizarre notion ... invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power."

What are your weak spots?

Palin:  I have experience as an executive!  Energy independence!  Heartland of America.  Once, I didn't have health coverage.  "And that world-view I share with John McCain."  (Um, those are your weaknesses?)  We're a good team.

Biden:  I have plenty of Achilles' heels.  And I won't change.  Wrote some good laws.  I'm a single parent -- my wife and daughter died.  My Dad went bust.  I'm doing great (even though I'm the poorest Senator).  (Again, these aren't really weaknesses ....)

Palin:  McCain is a maverick!  Why, even other Republicans like him -- Giuliani, Romney, me.  And partisanship is bad.

Biden:  Maverick my pasty behind.  Voted for Bush's deficit budget.  Voted against expanding health care.  Education, tax cuts, war -- "virtually anything that generally affects the things people talk about around the kitchen table."

Finally:  Single issue  on which you changed your view to fit circumstances?

Biden:  Yes.  Issue of basis upon which to approve or reject federal judges.  More than just moral turpitude -- ideology counts.

Palin:  Budgets I did not veto -- "I caved."  Didn't cut taxes enough.  But on principle, No.  Oh, and did I mention that I'm from Alaska?

Ifill: How do you change the tone in DC?

Biden:  Work across the aisle, the way Mike Mansfield taught me -- remember that Jesse Helms adopted a child; don't question your colleagues' motives.  Earn their respect.  (Not sure how that qualifies as "change.")

Palin:  Appoint people without regard for party.  (Good answer. Easily her best of the night.  Question:  Does her track record reflect this?).  Hey -- did you know I support jobs and energy and stuff?

Closing Statements

Palin:  We will fight for America, including the middle class (that we intend to use to pay for the tax cuts on the rich).  Quotes Ronald Reagan!  From memory!

Biden:   Economy tanking, so is credibility abroad.  We don't measure progress by CEO pay or corporate success -- but by how families are doing.  Dignity and respect in my old neighborhood.  "When you get knocked down, then get up."  I'm a working class guy.

The Field Narrows

And gets more pathetic.

Edwards and Giuliani are both out now, so my feelings are a mixture of grief and relief. Grief, because Edwards was my last hope for a Democratic candidate who would speak for the poor. (Clinton won't, and Obama doesn't represent either people or values, so far as I can tell -- he represents process. Which is nice, if you are a process.) And relief, because Giuliani was the candidate most likely to become a tyrant of Neronian proportion, blaming the press while Rome burns.

What does this leave Republicans with? Not much. The Huckster and Mom's old boyfriend are still kicking around, but the serious contenders appear to be McCain and Romney. They are not an inspiring pair, and will get less inspiring as the weeks drag on.

Case in point: the headlines about last night's debate read "Romney Accuses McCain of Dirty Tricks." This actually sounds promising. Did he hire Cubans and ex-CIA people to burgle campaign headquarters? Engage in push-polling about ROmney's putative biracial daughter?

Oh, no, my mistake. He attacked his record. Specifically, McCain said that Romney wants timetables on Iraq; Romney said this wasn't true. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Romney called last year for "a series of timetables and milestones" leading to withdrawal.

Okay, let's parse this mess. McCain is telling the truth, and Romney calls it a lie. That's pathetic. On the other hand, timetables and milestones are a very good idea, and the fact that neither man will say so is also pathetic.

Worse yet is the full form of Romney's accusation: that accurately citing his record in a "dirty trick that Ronad Reagan would never have approved of." What, you mean the guy who paid Lee Atwater to run his campaigns? Who lied every time he opened his mouth, most notably on the self-destructive abuse of executive power we call Iran-Contra? Seriously, guys, this is the wrong mantle to wrap yourself in. Reagan's dissidents still hold a grudge, and in the eyes of his acolytes you can only make yourselves look smaller by comparison.

It's gonna be a long year.

Giuliani Is a Jerk

Nothing really new here -- just further proof that the "hero" of 9/11 was really part of the problem.

Saturday's Times reports the release of an NYPD internal memo regarding the strange choice of the World Trade Center for the mayor's emergency headquarters: “Seven World Trade Center is a poor choice for the site of a crucial command center for the top leadership of the City of New York,” said the memo, put together by the police with input from the Secret Service. Why? Because of "the building’s public access, the center’s location on the 23rd floor, a 1,200-gallon diesel fuel supply for its generator, a large garage and delivery bays, the building’s history as a terrorist target, and its placement above and adjacent to a Consolidated Edison substation that provided much of the power for Lower Manhattan."

Simply put: it was an easy target for the people who had already gone after it once. Common sense.

But Giuliani didn't listen to common sense or expert opinion. He wanted what he wanted, and he wouldn't listen to those who thought he was making a mistake. As a direct result, the worst day in New York City's history was made that much worse when the mayor's emergency bunker was rendered useless, not because a clever enemy struck it, but because it happened to be in a really bad place.

Some hero.

Giuliani Will Lose Florida

As those wags at Wonkette put it, "Rudy has only ever campaigned in Florida, and now he's in fourth place there."

Now, let's be fair, he's just a point behind Huckabee, who isn't going to win the nomination either. But the Huckleberry has already won a primary, whereas the Nasty Man's whole strategy has appeared to hinge on the Sunshine State. Our best guess is that he has worked out a little New York style under-the-table payoff action to whichever company makes Florida's notoriously accurate voting equipment. Because failing that, the guy is toast.

On behalf of New Yorkers, including those who have relocated to Fort Lauderdale, I say, "Huzzah!"

Democratic Debate Rigged by Corporate Overlords?

Click to read the suggestion that Dennis Kucinich may have been barred from the TV debate by MSNBC because he is the only Democrat to consistently oppose the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. After all, MSNBC is owned by General Electric, which makes nuclear power plant generators.

It's just a theory. Sure, it's more likely that MSNBC looked at his dismal results in the early primaries and decided that there was no way in Hell he would ever be the candidate. Whether it was the job of a network to make this decision before the voters did is a legitimate question, but that's not the point. The point is that they didn't toss him because of a corporate conspiracy, they tossed him because of his primary results.

That's an another theory and, conveniently, there's a way to test it. Rudolph Giuliani, who received a smaller percentage of the vote in Michigan than Kucinich, is doing miserably in the early primaries. He is neck and neck with Ron Paul, whom nobody believes has a shot at the candidacy. This makes him a fringe candidate, too, pretty much by definition. So will MSNBC exclude Rudy from their next televised Republican debate?

I suppose it depends what their corporate overlords tell them to do.

Merry Christmas, Morons.

Actually, I don't believe the Administration's advocates for waterboarding (Dick "No-Brainer" Cheney, for example; or Michael "I Don't Know and I Won't Check" Mukasey) really are morons. I believe they are soulless, blood-sucking monsters from Hell. But that wouldn't fit on the top line; I tried.

And it does seem that the soulless blood-suckers have a few morons working for them. Take Senator Kit Bond, R-Mo, who appeared on PBS' NewsHour and said waterboarding was like swimming -- "there are different ways of doing it ... freestyle, backstroke." He actually said that.

Obviously, two things are true: (a) Bond is a mental (and probably moral) defective, and (b) he will have his ass handed to him the next time he runs for office.

More important, however, is this. Armed Forces Journal, which is exactly what sounds like, recently published this sharp rebuke to Giuliani, Mukasey, and everybody else who has waffled on the question of torture:

"In an interview, Giuliani was asked for his views on using ... waterboarding. He responded that in a hypothetical scenario that assumed an attack, 'I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they can think of.' Prompted again on the specific use of waterboarding, he repeated 'every method they could think of.' Mukasey said he found waterboarding to be 'repugnant,' but he wouldn’t answer whether it amounted to torture.

"Let AFJ be crystal clear on a subject where these men are opaque: Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. In 1947, the U.S. prosecuted a Japanese military officer for carrying out a form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian during World War II.

"Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work. That blunt truth means all U.S. leaders, present and future, should be clear on the issue."

Thank you, gentlemen. Pass that little Christmas gift up the chain of command, would you?

Rudy Lies

Well, that's not news. But this time we mean he lies about something besides "forsaking all others."

Per ABC News, the Nasty Man is running a radio spot in New Hampshire in which he claims that his odds of surviving prostate cancer in the American health-care system were 84 percent, and while in England they would have been 44 percent.

Wow! That English commie-symp socialized medicine sucks! Too bad Lady Thatcher couldn't have stayed in office a thousand years longer so that she could have done away with it.

Or at least that's what he is hoping we'll think. In fact, the five-year survival rate for Englishmen with prostate cancer is 74.4% and rising. Not as good as the the US, where we have more aggressive screening protocols, but still vastly better than Giuliani claims.

So he's lying. Well, technically, he's not lying. That would involve creative thinking. Giuliani is in fact quoting numbers bandied about by David Gratzer, a physician and conservative think-tank employee. Giuliani found them in an article by Gratzer with the coldly scientific title "The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care." When pressed by reporters, Gratzer cited a 2000 report by the Commonwealth Fund. When Giuliani was asked why he cited the bogus numberts, a staffer answered that "the campaign did not attempt to independently verify the statistics."

Ahhh. We get it. You can't say somebody is lying when they spread false information, as long as somebody else spread it first.

In other words, Giuliani isn't to blame. He was just relying on faulty intelligence reports.

Oh, @#$%, the Klingons Are Coming

But that's okay. Rudy's got a plan to protect Planet Earth from extraterrestrial terrorists.

That's what he told a New Hampshire boy, who asked about it recently. Apparently, this was the first time Giuliani had been questioned about his ability to save the world from intergalactic assault. His chuckle suggests either that he wasn't taking the question seriously, or that he's actually thought about it already ... a lot. Good for him.

For our money, Al Gore still has the best earth-protection plan.

Giuliani An Offensive Hypocrite

Okay, it isn't exactly news. But click the link for the most recent evidence. Here's a recap:

Thrice-divorced (and at least thrice-adulterous) Giuliani gets a lot of scrutiny from religious types. So in an interview with the Christian Boradcasting Network, he goes (surprise!) on the offensive. He protests that "there are a lot of people who are very judgmental," and says "I'm guided, very often, by 'judge not lest you be judged.'"

Okay, now, this is just weird. As New Yorkers know, Giuliani is the most judgmental human being on the face of the planet earth, saving only -- maybe -- a couple of extremist mullahs. This is the guy who tried to evict one of America's most prestigious art museums because he didn't like one of their paintings. His governing style was to war on everybody from the squeegee-wielding homeless guys to welfare mothers. His former politcal ally, and predecessor as mayor, wrote a book called simply "Giuliani: Nasty Man."

So, umm, at least he knows what he's talking about when he says that there are judgmental people in the world.

Giuliani then goes on to talk about his theological study in college, and how "it's an area I know really, really well academically." Hmn. We at the Egg have a pretty fair book-reading knowledge of military strategy, but doubt it would do us much good in a firefight. For that mater, we've read all the Jack Reacher novels, but they haven't made us taller, stronger or more cunning.

See, Rudy, the deal with theology -- and specifically with moral theology -- is that you can't just read about it. You have to live it. "Justification by faith" isn't about cheap grace, old pal. Or didn't they teach Bonhoeffer at your college?

Giuliani Wants to Be a Fireman

... if he ever grows up.

Fearlessly burning his bridges, the former NYC mayor has outraged firefighters and other first responders by claiming to have spent as much time as any of them -- "or more"! -- at the World Trade Center site. Therefore, he says, "I'm one of you."

No matter which borough they come from, the firefighters respond with a traditional Bronx cheer : "I personally find that very, very insulting," says one; "He's not one of us. He never has been and he never will be," says another.

"Self-absorbed, arrogant and deluded," says a third.

If You're Thinking About Voting For Rudy ...

Click the link for yet another take on why that might be a mistake, this one by Josh Johnson of the Rocky Mountain News. It's a decent rundown of what most New Yorkers already know about their former jefe. But, like many other websites lately, it offers a chilling quotation, in which Giuliani says that "freedom is the willlingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority."

Like most of the other sites that quote it, Johnson doesn't give much context. It was a 1994 speech on crime -- early in Rudy's tenure as mayor, long before 9/11. (The Times offers a meatier excerpt at : http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260). But there is a whole section that merits a look for anybody who wants to see how Giuliani's mind works:

"We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.

"As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

"[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

"You have free speech so I can be heard."

He goes on to say that government isn't the solution to the decay of society, stronger families are. Taken as a whole, the speech is a weird melange of conservative ideas. Each idea by itself might appeal to some part of the Republican tent, but I'm not sure that they work together very well. The emphasis on personal responsibility and the limitations of government squares poorly with the emphasis upon lawful authority, for example. Still, the ideas aren't bad or even wrong, so far as they do. But did you catch the kicker?

Make no mistake: Giulliani is an authoritarian bastard. There is a lot of trash-talk about NYC lately, at least in Sullivan's blog, calling in a "nanny state" under the present mayor. This is nonsense. it was Giuliani who erected steel barriers along the avenues so that pedestrians were no longer free to choose which intersection they used -- a stupid idea which Bloomberg quickly jettisoned. Throw in the Diallou shooting, the Louima torture and a series of excessive force cases in the NYPD, and it was obvious to most of us living there that New York wasn't a nanny state during "Giuliani time." It was a police state.

And he's also a narcissistic freak of nature. What else could explain the serial humiliation of serial wives?

These two lovely character traits -- authoritarianism and narcissism -- come together in a single lapidary remark, improvised in response to a heckler: "You have free speech so I can be heard."

And this guy is his party's front-runner? Yeesh.

Giuliani's Daughter Backs Obama

Rudy has "asked for privacy to deal with strained relationships in his family." No joke.

We at the Egg aren't going to violate the ex-mayor's filial privacy. But we are going to point out, yet again, that his "strained relationships" aren't just the usual sturm-und-drang of family life. This is a man who married his own cousin, then cheated on her and lied about knowing how they were related -- lied to his church, no less -- in order to end the marriage. Then he married somebody else, cheated on her, and publicly humiliated her by announcing their divorce to the media before he announced it to her or the kids.

He lies, he cheats, and he has no problem with humiliating even those closest to him. So no, we're not surprised that his one of his kids might prefer Obama (or for that matter Lucifer) for president.

Bloomberg Doth Bestride the World Like a Colossus?

Sue Casey, at Huffington Post, states bluntly that if NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg enters the presidential race, he will win. No ifs, ands, or butts. (In-joke about his antismoking campaign. Get it?)

She doesn't have much of a case -- he's rich, he's independent, he's pragmatic. Um, okay. We're not sure these outweigh the mayor's own ironic self-assessment: "A short Jewish billionaire from New York? Come on!" Still, we at the Egg would be more than happy to believe Casey is right. Bloomberg is our mayor, and a damned good one. Apparently, "President Wesley Clark" is simply not going to happen, so we'll take Bloomie.

What's a bit odd to us is that Sue Casey (whose bio mentions that she "cut her teeth on New Hampshire primary politics") seems distressed by the possibility that an independent might run and win, because this means "the primary season could come and go and not matter one whit," and that Bloomie could be elected "without ever having to worry about such an old fashioned notions as party primaries."

Let's be frank, Sue. That's a good thing.

Why? Well, it's not as though party primaries are required by the Constitution. Far from it; "faction" -- by which they meant political partisanship -- was something the Founders earnestly, if naively, hoped to avoid in their nascent Republic. Nor are primaries proving to be an especially distinguished way of choosing candidates. Competition among states to feel important has led to a perversely early primary season, meaning in turn that we have to endure a long, pointless, and expensive campaign. The GOP's winner-take-all system means that the dissenting votes in larger states (Republicans in New York, Democrats in Texas) are effectively worthless, and the candidates are effectively chosen by swing states -- call this the "Electoral College fallacy."

Honestly, a candidate who can take some of the king-making power-madness out of New Hampshire, Iowa and their slew of wannabees will be doing the nation a favor. And if the same candidate is beholden to neither party machinery nor the wishes of big-time corporate donors, so much the better. If, unlike any of the announced candidates (including Giuliani!) the candidate has a solid track record of effective management in one of the most complex and challenging environments imaginable, all done without the usual political game of playing interest groups off against eah other -- well then, by gum, I think we might have a winner.

Hilary Takes Texas

Well, not takes, exactly. A poll suggests that, if the vote were today, Senator Clinton would tie either Senator McCain or Imperator Giuliani . . . in Texas. (Obama doesn't do quite as well).

Andrew Sullivan muses, "I wonder if the Republicans know what is about to hit them." Fair question. After all, as red states go, Texas is pretty damn red. On the other hand, it is (or was) the home of Ann Richards, Molly Ivins, Kinky Friedman and LBJ. So there is a tradition of homegrown Democratic -- even progressive -- sympathy down there.

But there are a couple of considerations. First, let's remember that Clinton isn't really all that progressive, at least not by the standards of Democratic hardliners. She's a smidge to the left of her husband, who basically ended welfare. She lacks his personal magnetism, but like him, she is a committed pragmatist and policy wonk. These are good things, both for running and for governing; but they also put the kibosh on any idea of a sudden liberal upswell in the Lone Star State.

Second, let's be clear about what is driving the poll results. According to The USA Today, "In the poll, nearly two-thirds of Texans said the country was on the wrong track. Four in 10 called the Iraq war the nation's most important problem. One in 10 cited immigration."

In other words, Texans want a solution to the Iraq disaster. They want it four times as badly as they want a new immigration policy. And despite the fact that Obama was out front in his opposition to the invasion, Texans seem to believe that Clinton is the one best able to deliver the goods.