Marin Forum

Prop 1A

Prop 1A provides the necessary funds to begin construction of necessary transportation infrastructure to address the issues of climate change and peak oil. Our opinion of 1A should already be clear as put forward in a previous post: http://marin-forum.com/?p=197. California lacks rail networks that connect Northern and Southern California. Not only would highspeed rail be cheaper than airfare between LA and SF but the travel times would not be much different. Highspeed rail is costly but it is a good long term investment.

Our Opinion: YES

Prop 2

Animal rights are important and conditions in California farms, especially among the large commercial farms, are deplorable. Prop 2 specifically targets the egg industry but also addresses conditions in the cattle and pig industry. These industries should have addressed the humane treatment of their animals but they were more concerned with their profits. Action needs to be taken to clean up the industry. However, we do not believe this issue is best addressed through the initiative process. The vast majority of voters have no stake in the issue while a small group of people will be significantly affected if the proposition passes. Also opponents to Prop 2 claimed that the egg industry would be severely affected and may even relocate out of state driving up the cost of eggs. This claim was confirmed by the LA times so it has credibility. Considering the state of our economy this is not a good time to see an increase in food costs.

Our Opinion: NEUTRAL

Prop 3

Prop 3 addresses children’s health by funding children’s health hospitals through bonds. There does not seem to be many significant negative aspects to this proposition and the money is not coming directly from the California budget. Furthermore, it will significantly fund the University of California system which has been facing serious budget cuts as of late. We are also concerned by opponents’ efforts to connect Prop 3 with illegal immigration. According to them Prop 3 will provide money for healthcare given to illegal immigrants. This issue has nothing to do with immigration.

Our Opinion: YES

Prop 4

Parental notification for a minor wishing to obtain an abortion has appeared on the ballot several times before. Each time it has been voted down. There are too many loopholes in this proposition and it could create a mess in our legal system. Furthermore, if a girl wants to get an abortion, she will get it even if it means getting it through back ally methods. In many cases a minor cannot obtain certain medical procedures without parental consent; however, there are exceptions. Many of the exemptions involve reproductive health but they also include infectious diseases and mental health. Therefore, an exception for abortion is not out of the ordinary. Abortion is a personal issue and the state should not intervene.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 5

By removing nonviolent drug offenders from the prison system Prop 5 would significantly impact the California prison system. Prop 5 allocates nearly half a billion dollars for drug treatment programs and in the long term will remove many people from the prison system addressing the issue of overcrowded. Currently the California prison system is extremely overcrowded and badly needs to be reformed. Prop 5 would address this issue but in the process cost the state a significant amount of money that it doesn’t have at the moment. Furthermore, the effectiveness of drug rehab programs is unclear. Considering California’s budget problems now is not the time to allocate funds to prison reform without finding some way to increase revenue (i.e. taxes). Money is better spent on preventive measures, not corrective measures.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 6

Prop 6 provides funding for law enforcement. Specifically it targets gang related crimes. Other affected areas include vehicle theft, methamphetamine use, and parole penalties. The problem: the state does not have nearly one billion dollars to allocate to these programs. Furthermore, the State is already beginning to address these issues through other programs such as CalGRIP. California just doesn’t have the money for this proposition.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 7

It is absolutely necessary to increase the use of renewable energy and fund research and development of associated technologies. Prop 7 would increase the renewable energy standards for utilities among other things. Unfortunately Prop 7 is extremely flawed. It puts nearly impossible demands on local utilities. It seems highly unlikely that municipal utilities could reach the 20% standard in two years. The investor owned utilities are struggling to reach 20% and they have had nearly five years. It also seems unlikely that utilities could reach 40% by 2020. Furthermore, Sacramento is already moving toward increasing renewable energy use without prodding from the people. The California legislature will be able to draft a similar bill that is much better worded and probably more effective. Tellingly the opponents of Prop 7 include environmentalists, investor-owned utilities, and both political parties. Prop 7 places nearly impossible burdens on utilities and similar legislation will pass through Sacramento in the next few years.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 8

Prop 8 is probably the most controversial proposition on the ballot. There is no reason that same sex couples should be prevented from marrying. First the state should not be regulating who can marry and who cannot. Everyone deserves access to the same benefits and rights regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is no longer completely a religious issue and allowing same sex marriage does not force religious institutions to perform same sex marriages. Prop 8 has nothing to do with “saving the children.” No well constructed study proves that same sex marriages harm a child’s growth and development. Also California schools are NOT required to teach students about marriage. Once again this is an issue where the state should not be intervening.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 9

Prop 9 is another crime related proposition that deals with victims’ rights. It would allow victims to have a larger role in the criminal justice process. It also makes some changes to the parole system. Under previous laws and a 1982 proposition victims received certain constitutional rights. Today victims already receive some rights. More importantly, victims should not have a larger role in the criminal justice process. It is important that victims are kept someone separate from the trial to insure a fair trial. This is an aspect of our criminal system that does not have high priority in reform.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 10

Prop 10 is sponsored by T. Boone Pickens and would create a demand for natural gas vehicles. It just happens to be that the use of natural gas vehicles is crucial part of the Pickens Plan. The Pickens Plan is an interesting idea to remove our dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic sources including investments in renewable energy, but it’s questionable whether switching to natural gas is really a solution. The problem with Prop 10 is that the main beneficiary is Pickens’ natural gas company. There are better ways to develop renewable energy and energy independence. Prop 10 creates a market that didn’t exist before; it is a gimmick by special interests.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 11

Prop 11 would create a commission to do redistricting. Currently districts in California are designed to give a significant advantage to Democrats. This issue needs to be addressed and district boundaries should not favor one party over the other. However, the state doesn’t have the resources at the moment to begin redistricting. In light of our budget crisis now is not the time to perform redistricting, but this issue will have to be addressed eventually.

Our Opinion: NO

Prop 12

This is a no brainer. Since 1921 Californians have approved bonds to help veterans buy homes and farms. There is no reason why this shouldn’t continue especially since there is no cost to tax payers. There is hardly any opposition to this proposition, and voters should continue to approve these bonds.

Our Opinion: YES

With Colin Powell endorsing Obama and the possibility that he may join the new administration, it is worthwhile to take a look at the Powell Doctrine. The Clinton foreign policy team found the Powell Doctrine a burden at times especially when they wanted to intervene in regional conflicts or take a firmer stance on the situation in Yugoslavia during the mid 1990s. The first Gulf War shaped the Doctine and it is one of the only recent conflicts to fit the doctrine. The Powell Doctrine involves a serious of questions that must be answered affirmatively before engaging in a conflict:

1. Are vital national security interests threatened?
2. Is there a clear and obtainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully evaluated?
4. Has all other non-violent policy been exhausted?
5. Is there an exit strategy?
6. Have the consequences been fully considered?
7. Is involvement supported by the American people?
8. Is there genuine broad support for intervention?

Powell expanded on his doctrine by including that once the decision is made to intervene then all available resources should directed to the war effort in order to achieve decisive force (“Shock and Awe”). However, “Shock and Awe” has been used outside the Powell Doctrine with notable success (Bosnia). The doctrine suggests that the United States never should have gotten involved in Iraq the second time because it failed to meet every aspect of the doctrine except points 1,2, and 7. The war only satisfies point 2 if the reason for war was to removed Saddam Husein’s WMDs or to remove Saddam from power. Even point 1 is iffy because  Saddam posed only a limited threat in early late 2002. However, point 1 can be expanded to include US allies in which case Saddam posed a threat to Israel.

The Powell Doctrine is a fundamentally sound doctrine but it could run at odds with potential policies put forth by an Obama administration. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have made it clear that they would seriously consider intervention in Darfur. Most “Humanitarian interventions” fail to meet points 1 and 5 of the Powell Doctrine. So lets take a look at points 1 and 5 in detail.

The idea of intervening only when U.S. security interests are threatened is extremely vague. A narrow definition of security interests would include U.S. personnel and citizens, military installations, infrastructure (ports, airports, railways, and highways), and resources (oil). But it is also in U.S. security interest to be actively involved in the world cultivating alliances and taking a firm stand on certain issues. By directly intervening in a case of genocide it tells the world that such actions will not be tolerated and if anyone attempts to repeat genocide then they will have the same fate. This line of thought is connected to the belief that the United States should be the world’s police officer. On another level genocides and regional conflicts are never good for stability and in today’s highly globalized society what happens in one corner of the world is felt almost everywhere. For example genocide encourages small arms smuggling. The small arms trade runs counter to US security interests because often the weapons being sold on the black market end up in extremist hands. By intervening in a genocide the flow of small arms is prevented and regional stability means extremists will struggle to get a foothold. Thus, the definition of security interests in point 1 is vital to applying the Powell Doctrine.

Point 5 (clear exit strategy) is often seen as the complicating factor in humanitarian invention. The problem is that many humanitarian intervention missions in conflict zones involve peacekeeping whose duration is usually dictated by the ability of the various factions to reach a peace agreement. Often that can take several years and the last thing a country like the US wants to do is get a large amount of its military resources committed to a conflict where it’s not one of the major players (due to the neutrality of peacekeeping forces). However, it is quite possible that a well designed peacekeeping mission can have an exit strategy. One of the more significant reasons for peacekeeping failures are the rules of engagement (ROE). In conflicts such as Somalia the rules of engagement were FUBAR as US forces were extremely restricted on how and when they could use force. Aggressive ROEs may compromise neutrality but in genocide how can one remain neutral? Most UN peacekeeping missions have very limited ROEs and don’t focus on exit strategies (the mentality is that peacekeeping forces should be kept in place as long as it takes to achieve peace) so they struggle to meet the Powell Doctrine.

The Powell Doctrine does not eliminate the ability to engage in peacekeeping missions but it does make it very hard to intervene on humanitarian principles. This is perhaps one of the significant flaws with the doctrine since peacekeeping missions are vital to global security and stability. Perhaps the Powell Doctrine is best applied to full scale invasions of countries along the lines of Gulf War I and II. But then what’s the difference between an invasion and a well equipped and substantially large peacekeeping force with broad ROEs?

It’s quite possible that the Powell Doctrine is outdated. The doctrine was based off of another doctrine formulated during the 1980s (Cold War). The importance of combating terrorism has significantly shifted priorities away from the humanitarian missions. The Powell Doctrine was designed to be used for the conflicts that occurred during the 1990s (Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo). The 1990s were very different from the 2000s and the Powell Doctrine was completely thrown away by the Bush Administration.

Yet there are aspects of the Powell Doctrine that should be applied before any military engagement. Proper assessment of th situation on the ground, clear objectives, reliance on diplomatic efforts, and broad international support are crucial. It is important to remember that the Powell Doctrine represents a piece of 1990s military policy that was crafted by an institution that was still haunted by the ghosts of Vietnam and hesistent to commit US forces to what are often seen as “regional” conflicts.

The Bush Administration and countless others have pointed to Anbar Province in Iraq as the top success story in the last couple years. Once a haven for Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), US support and cooperation with local sheiks has put AQI on the run. Violence has significantly decreased in the region and there is a certain degree of order. AQI’s actions turned the citizenry against them. The local populous then put their support behind US backed sheiks who were able to successfully confront AQI.

The original leader of the “Anbar Awakening” was assassinated last year and since then there has been no unifying force other than US dollars. Anbar is now controlled by various sheiks who are all vying for power and influence. The violence is gone but there is always the possibility of an ambitious sheik who wants to become the dominate player in the region. The mentality in part seems to be the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The more troubling aspect in Anbar is the fact that these sheik’s and their personal armies are completely outside the political system in Iraq, The central government in Baghdad doesn’t want to incorporate them because they don’t trust the sheiks. Only a few years ago many of these sheiks fought alongside the insurgency. There is a fear that if the Awakening movement was incorporated into the Iraqi military and police forces the armed forces would be seriously undermined. The fear of infiltration is on top of many lawmakers minds. Then of course there is the fact that the Iraqi government is dominated by Shia while the Awakening is composed of Sunnis. On the other side Awakening leaders don’t trust the central government and are more loyal to their tribes.

A government has sovereignty over all territory where it has military hegemony. The Anbar Sheiks represent another faction that has considerable clout (more so than the central government) in Anbar. Thus as long as these sheiks are independent of Baghdad, the central government will not have sovereignty over its entire national territory. Anbar will always be undermining their sovereignty until it is incorporated into the central government.

If Baghdad wants long term stability then they are going to have to incorporate the Anbar fighters into the Iraqi armed forces. By co opting a group you can effectively neutralize them. Furthermore, you want to bring independent fighters into the fold and thus make them dependent on the central government. At this stage it would be more effective if the US channeled funds to the Awakening through the Iraqi government. But as mentioned above the problem is trust. In the beginning of the war many of the fighters now comprising the Awakening fought with the insurgency; thus the Iraqi government sees them as former insurgents and arrests them which in turn makes the Anbar sheiks wary of the Iraqi government and makes the sheiks more independent. The independence of the sheiks only confirms the Iraqi government’s suspicion that the sheiks are anti-government. It is a vicious cycle that will be extremely hard to break.

Recently the Anbar Awakening leaders have suggested that they will try to contest the major Sunni party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, in provincial elections. But joining the political system does not fully integrate themselves into the Iraqi government. They will still have their personal armies and history/current events (Kenya, Afghanistan, Sadr in Iraq, Italy and Germany pre-WWII etc) shows that privates armies attached to powerful figures or political parties are extremely detrimental to political stability.

The Iraqi government must integrate the Anbar Awakening into the police and armed forces. As long as they are independent and owe their allegience to any power other than Baghdad longterm stability will be an issue. The United States in part created this problem by arming and financing factions independent of the government. It may have brought incredibile success now, but will it bring success five or ten years in the future? The Anbar sheiks are incredibly opportunistic. They saw the US as the best option to obtain power and influence after AQI lost touch with the people. But what will happen when the US leaves? Under current cirumstances it seems unlikely that they would look to Baghdad. An armed militia loyal to ambitious young leaders is never good for national stability.

This morning on Meet the Press former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama. He stated that Obama was qualified to be president, showed strong leadership and ideas on the economy, and has electrified the nation in a way will dramatically change the United States’ position in the world. He called John McCain a friend but he lacks a strong economic response and his choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate puts the United States in a dangerous position. It is also well know that Powell has disagreed with the Republican Party on foreign policy issues and domestic social issues.

Colin Power is considered one of the more respected men in the US political sphere. The vast majority of Americans have a favorable view of him and he has immense respect in the military community and among moderates. Yet, to some he has lost all credibility after being President Bush’s Secretary of State as the US invaded Iraq. Many see Powell’s speech before the United Nations making the case for war as an irreparable blunder that completely destroyed his credibility in the international community. Powell recognizes that that moment was a blot on his career and has since tried to distance himself from the Bush administration.

What does Powell’s endorsement mean? It gives more foreign policy credibility to Obama and the Democrats. Undoubtedly it will have the strongest effect on independents and moderate Republicans. Older Republicans especially those from the Reagan and Bush Sr. years respect Powell and his judgment. Veterans may feel more confident in Obama. More importantly, with only a few weeks until the election it could be powerful in the battleground states. If it motivates just a few groups of voters, Obama could pick up the key states such as Virginia and Ohio. Powell is now the biggest name Republican to endorse Obama. During the primaries it was important for Obama to get endorsements from Kennedy because Kennedy represented the old Democratic vanguard. Powell is similarly a prominent figure in the military establishment and among some Republicans. That being said endorsements are only so powerful. For anyone who had already decided to support McCain, Powell’s endorsement will have no or little effect.

Powell’s endorsement is powerful because it is symbolic. It represents a certain branch of Republicans throwing their support for Obama. The timing of the endorsement is very helpful for Obama since the effects of the endorsement should be felt for the next few weeks or so. Any earlier and it most likely would have been forgotten by election day. So now will Powell have a spot in the Obama administration? It doesn’t seem likely that he would be given the Secretary of State position, but Secretary of Defense? National Security Adviser?

In the upcoming decade effective and efficient train service will become imperative as fuel prices rise. Unfortunately California’s passenger rail system is in serious decay. Regional rail systems fair slightly better but as of now there is no rail service other than Amtrak connecting the Bay Area to the greater Los Angeles region. Amtrak itself is a failing system and it has no direct rail service to San Francisco. Furthermore it is still more convent to fly or even drive between San Francisco and Los Angeles than to take Amtrak. Yet fuel expenses are on the rise and travel between the two cities may soon become costly via car or plane. On the regional level improved rail systems will get people out of their cars and somewhat reduce congestion. So here’s a brief look at two rail financing plans facing Marin County voters (and California voters for Prop 1A):

Measure Q (Marin County)

Measure Q involves a quarter cent sales tax to finance a light-rail system servicing Sonoma and Marin counties (SMART). The North Bay lacks any commuter rail system and there is no bus system that covers both Sonoma and Marin counties. Existing bus systems (Golden Gate Transit) are in weakening condition. I have already addressed SMART in a previous post which you can read here: http://marin-forum.com/?p=115. SMART is important because it is the first regional rail system servicing the North Bay. Ultimately it may be able to link with the other regional transit systems in the area, but for now Measure Q establishes the infrastructure for an improved transit network.

Prop 1A

Measure Q is an example of the necessary regional transit systems to get people out of their cars and make commuting more efficient. Since Measure Q establishes a commuter rail system its effects will be felt relatively soon. Prop 1A is far more long term, but the creation of a high speed rail system connecting Northern and Southern California could be the single most important California transportation investment/improvment in the next few decades. There may come a point where air travel is too expensive for some people and by that time Amtrak may no longer be functioning. Even if Amtrak is still operating its long travel times between Los Angeles and San Francisco will surely discourage people. The high speed rail, however, will make that travel time less than three hours. Considering that it takes at least six hours by car around three plus hours by plane (including baggage checking and other hassles associated with the airport) the train seems to be a great alternative. Fuel prices are only going to increase which will make the train even more appealing. The project will be costly which some people may not see as justified considering California’s budget at the moment, but such infrastructure improvements are vital for economy. The longer such a project is put off the more expensive it will become to finance and its implementation will be more problematic. Construction on a high speed rail network has to begin as soon as possible to negate problems associated with high fuel costs.

*****

Portland’s (Oregon) climate action plan stresses the importance of developing efficient rail systems to address the problem of peak oil. It is not a matter of if peak oil will occur but when. Therefore, it is important that we start developing the infrastructure now before we are in the midst of the crisis. The rail system in the United States is in sorry shape especially on the West Coast. Air travel may become a luxery and long distance car travel may not be cost effective and it certainly will not be efficient. In an improved rail system will provide an efficient alternative.  Voting YES on Measure Q and Prop 1A will go a long way in improving our transportation network to address peak oil and climate change.

The last debate is over and it is completely clear that John Mccain is hurting. Barack Obama won the last debate on Wednesday even though he was not spectacular. McCain actually started off strong and he would continue to to make strong jabs but he suffered from a severe case of side-tracking.

It was surprising to hear McCain jump from completely different points in nearly the same sentence.  For example he went from attacking Acorn to talking about taxes. He was all over the place and at times it was hard to follow his points. It seemed that McCain was desperate to lay critical blow but he didn’t know which fight to pick, so instead he just tried to attack Obama on every point.

The second problem with McCain’s attacks was that they came across as nasty and overly aggressive. His line that Obama’s association with Acorn is “destroying the fabric of democracy” is completely unfounded. In fact he completely botched his attack on Obama over Ayers and Acorn (he actually wanted to change the topic back to the economy). This part of the debate went really bad for McCain and he looked completely silly. He seemed whiny after Obama mentioned that people at McCain’s rallies were chanting “kill him” upon the mention of Obama’s name; his response was that he didn’t like some of the t-shirts that Obama supporters wore to Obama rallies.

A couple points of note:

• McCain’s expressions while Obama was speaking did not help his cause. His memorable expression was his “shocked” face whenever Obama corrected him. McCain has always suffered from his facial expressions during debates and in Wednesday’s debate he came off particularly bad.
• The pundits are calling McCain’s “I’m not President Bush” response a highlight. While it was a strong comment, among the focus groups it received mixed success. Many said that it just came off as an angry comment. Besides Obama compares McCain to Bush because of his voting record not his personality or character.
• Joe the Plumber is now the image of small business owners. But who is Joe the Plumber?  In any event be prepared to hear the Joe the Plumber image many times over the next few weeks.

McCain did not do poorly on economics (it helped having developed a concrete plan) but he sidetracked himself too many times and he came across nasty too often. He had a lot of ground to make up and he tried to get as many punches in as possible but ultimately it was too much to cover in a 1.5 hour span. Obama won this last debate and he should be able to cruise to election day.

For eight straight days the Dow has continued to drop and soon it could fall below 8000 points which is a level that hasn’t been seen since 2003. The economic crisis is strongly hurting the financial institutions, but the auto industry is also facing tough times. Yesterday both GM and Ford saw their stocks fall and they continue to lay off employees. In Detroit manufacturing has significantly declined and many manufacturers of various car components have been filing for bankruptcy.

Now attention is turning to General Motors. A report by JD Power and Associates claims that GM will suffer a global collapse by the end of 2009. Meanwhile, its stock has dropped 31% and it is seven times lower than its stock after the 1929 stockmarket collapse. Analysts are now beginning to wonder if the US auto industry survive this economic crisis. GM’s situation is indicative of American manufacturing.

The US auto industry has failed to innovate and their reliance on government support has made them slow and unable to cope with changing circumstances. US automakers have still failed to release a car to compete with Toyota’s Prius. Several years after Japanese companies began developing hybrid versions of all their major models, US automakers have finally done the same. Despite this, car buyers still look to Toyota or Honda for fuel efficient vehicles.

The second problem is that the US auto industry is still focused on SUVs and trucks. Ford and GM are still pushing their lines of trucks even as Americans turn away from the F-150. Americans want cheap and fuel efficient vehicles yet the US auto industry is still focusing on trucks or SUVs with 12mpg (the Cadillac Escalade). Companies like GM have failed to innovate and evolve; thus, they have lost touch with American consumers. Take the Cadillac Escalade Hybrid for example. It gets 19/20mpg compared to the non-hybrid 12/19mpgs and costs $70,000 and more. Is this a car that Americans will buy during tough economic times?

Now GM might no longer exist by 2010 (at least in its current form). The US auto industry screwed themselves over when they got comfortable with low fuel prices and consumer demand for larger vehicles. Such practice is leading them to collapse as the markets have changed and their business plans are completely incapable with changing times.

The problem lies in how to deal with a potential collapse of one of the giants in the US auto industry. Continuing to prop up a backward and failing company does not seem prudent but the loss of jobs resulting from its failure would be devastating. Yet it may reach the point where we’ll have to recognize that the US auto industry is beyond saving and the best thing to do is to switch those sectors of the economy over to new and potentially important sectors. A quicker fix would be to consolidate the auto industry and sell off poor performing brands. The second solution is to move away from manufacturing and focus on new emerging sectors such as green energy. It might be important to encourage foreign companies to set up plants in the United States to prevent significant unemployment by automotive workers.

An Obama administration would seem to head in this direction. Current auto workers should be given the opportunity to retrain and enter into the energy sector. Not only is domestic demand for renewable energy sources increasing but it would also be possible to export technologies to developing nations especially China. The energy and high-tech sectors are the future of the US economy and it is important to integrate the old manufacturing economy into this new sector.

The second Presidential debate was completely boring, uninspiring, a rehash of old material, and suffered from a terrible “debate” structure. John McCain is supposed to excel at town hall style debates yet he seemed just as boring as Barack Obama. Maybe McCain’s ineffectiveness was due to the fact that this debate really wasn’t a town hall meeting but a typical presidential debate with the audience on the stage asking the same questions that would be asked by the moderator.

Another problem with the debate was that none of the candidates said anything new. Obama gave more concrete answers than his last debate and actually seemed more comfortable in the debate than McCain but otherwise he did not say anything new from his last debate or the VP deabte. Meanwhile, McCain seemed like he had lost steam since the last debate and was stiff at times. His jokes were terrible and came off flat (Jokes only work when the audience can interact which they can’t at the debates).

Briefly: Obama was solid throughout the debate and effectively neutralized any possible “homerun” by McCain. On foreign policy he was a little weaker but didn’t fall too far behind McCain. In a previous post I mentioned that McCain lacks foreign policy credibility and knowledge; however, tonight he was solid on foreign policy. Props go to McCain in mentioning the importance of balancing military intervention to stop genocide and acknowledging the situation on that ground and that military intervention may make matters worse. He’s absolutely right. We shouldn’t intervene in a conflict no matter how genocidal it may be if our presence only makes the conflict worse. Of course once Russia was mentioned he seemed a little belligerent again.

The debate will have little effect on the race. It definitely wasn’t a game changer and the fact that Obama held his own might only increase his lead over McCain. That’s the problem for McCain. He did well but it’s not enough and now the pundits are declaring that Obama will win the election. It’s definitely looking that way too. Here’s the latest data from the latest polls (Most are from CNN):

Obama         McCain

Florida           51                 43

Virginia         53                 43

N. Carolina   49                  49

Missouri       49                  48

Ohio             50                  47

Basically if Obama wins any one of those states he should win the general election. It’s not looking good for McCain and tonight’s debate did nothing to excite people about John McCain. Indicative of the situation was the fact that Obama stayed well after the debate to talk to people who were there while McCain rather quickly left the stage. John McCain can never be ruled out but the Straight Talk Express is driving on three flat tires.

The talk going around is that the VP debate was a tie and that Gov. Sarah Palin performed exceptionally well. Yes Palin performed well, but she receives high marks only because the expectations for her were extremely low. Everyone expected her to bumble through the debate and implode. It’s sad when people believe that a candidate had a solid performance because they didn’t screw up. Meanwhile, Senator Joe Biden showed why he’s on the ticket. He responded to all the questions and gave detailed and substantive answers in a way that was easily understandable to the audience.

The most noticeable aspect of the debate was that Palin often avoided answering the questions. Last week during the first Presidential debate such avoidance of certain questions would not have been possible. Gwen Ifill did a poor job as the moderator by hardly asking any follow up questions and letting both candidates but especially Palin completely dance around a question. The lack of follow-up questions was a significant boon to the Republicans as all that Palin had to do was recite talking points that she learned while in “debate boot-camp” at McCain’s ranch. Palin performs well with scripted speeches (which this debate was), but is a complete mess during one-on-one interviews. That is clear after last night.

In the early portion of the debate Palin seemed to pick the wrong fights namely focusing on energy and tax policy. Palin tries to portray herself as an energy policy expert, but she’s no expert; she has experience on energy issues only because energy (oil) is an important issue in Alaska. If she were an energy expert she would know how many barrels of oil Alaska is capable of producing and what percentage that number is of the nation’s oil reserves. In other words the numbers she was citing were wrong.  It is understandable why Palin would want to discuss energy policy, but focusing on tax policy was a big mistake. She picked a fight that she couldn’t win as Obama-Biden have the more appealing tax policy. Biden looked his best when discussing Obama’s tax policy. In fact the best moment of the debate for Biden came when he directly addressed the audience and thoroughly explained the Democrats’ tax policy. Yet, Palin kept trying to bring up tax policy even when the debate had moved on. Big mistake.

This brings up another interesting part of the debate. Unlike last week, both VP candidates addressed the audience. Palin always looked at the camera and Biden took on his “average Joe” persona as he carefully explained the Democrats’ policies to the American public. Both candidates were able to connect with the average American which made the debate feel more lively than the dull Presidential Debate last Friday.

Surprisingly, Biden gave no knockout punches when the debate switched to foreign policy. He showed that he is highly knowledgeable in the field (far more so than Palin) but Palin kept up with him. In fact when both candidates were quoting the top commander in Afghanistan, Biden was taken aback when Palin responded with the “correct” wording of the comment.

Biden became strong again in the closing of the debate. Perhaps the most memorable part of the debate was when Biden choked up talking about his family. Palin talked about her unique family situation (arguably a strong point of hers) but then Biden has his own emotional response where he talked about his family upbringing and being a single parent. He beat Palin in her own game.

Biden started off the debate strong, cooled off a bit, but then finished very strong. Meanwhile, Palin was a little slow (she looked quite nervous at first as her voice quavered a bit and she spoke extremely fast) but she was solid and made no significant gaffs. When it came to substantive issues Biden was a consistent winner since Palin only excelled at reciting talking points. Palin presented herself well and showed that she is at least somewhat competent, but Biden really came out as the leader due to his compsure and knowledge of the issues.

Throughout the campaign John McCain has portrayed himself as one of the top foreign policy experts in the Senate. Somehow his time in Vietnam and twenty-one years in the Senate have made him credible in the foreign policy sphere. Sure he clearly is interesting in foreign affairs and is more knowledgeable on those issues than most people, but does he really know what he’s talking about? At moments he seems to be behind the times and operating in a Cold War mentality.

So lets take a look at his foreign policy experience during his terms in both the House and the US Senate. During the 1980s while he was in the House he mainly towed the Reagan lines. He believed in being tough with the Soviet Union, supported US aid of the Contras and other Reagan era Latin-America policies, but he opposed keeping US troops in Lebanon. Once in the Senate (1987) he joined the Armed Services Committee. In the early 1990s McCain spent considerable effort working with Vietnam to normalize relations. He opposed US intervention in Somalia; however, he supported NATO bombings against Yugoslavia. From day one he was a strong supporter of the Bush Administration’s position against Iraq, and while he has questioned certain aspects of the Iraq war he has been especially favorable of the 2007 Surge and continued involvement.

McCain does have more foreign policy experience than many members of the Senate but it is important to separate foreign policy and military affairs. With the exception of his work with Vietnam most of his foreign policy “experience” involves the military not diplomacy and geopolitics. After all it seems that most of his work in Congress has involved reform (pork barrel spending, campaign finance reform, etc), Indian gaming, and military affairs. As a soldier one can expect that he would have considerable knowledge of how the military works.

The 2007 Iraq Surge provides a solid example of the difference between military affairs and foreign policy. First, the Surge is not a political or diplomatic policy. It is a military strategy for US forces in Iraq. As a strategy it falls into the category of military affairs. McCain is right to support the Surge as the best strategy in Iraq. Militarily it has been successful and it has proven to be a far better strategy than previous strategies in Iraq. So McCain is correct from a military standpoint, but he errors in the the discussion of geopolitics and policy. He claims that the Surge will bring us victory in Iraq. Militarily it may have given us an exit strategy (thus a military victory in a sense), but geopolitically there is no way we can have victory in Iraq. What is victory? The causes for war have changed so many times that many people have forgotten why we originally invaded Iraq. Furthermore, our actions in Iraq have significantly decreased our standing in the international community and Islamic extremism and anti-Americanism has increased. To call our actions in Iraq as a victory is preposterous. Militarily we may come to something that could be considered a victory, but Iraq has been a geopolitical and foreign policy failure. McCain fails to make the distinction between the two.

Some of his proposed ideas continue to show a lack of understanding of today’s geopolitical climate. His “League of Democracies” is a perfect example. Today relations with Russia are extremely tense and much of this tension is due to Russia’s belief that Europe and the United States are conspiring to keep Russia in a crippled state. The creation of a League of Democracies that would undoubtedly be controlled by Western Europe and the United States would only increase current tensions. It seems more like an effort to have a United Nations Security Council without the veto wielding Russians and Chinese. Yet the Russians and Chinese are vital on certain issues such as Iran as they carry far more influence with these “rogue” nations than Western Europe. The League of Democracies is something straight out of the Cold War era that has little practical use in today’s world and will only hurt relations with key players in world politics namely Russia and China.

McCain’s comments during the Debate about Pakistan further show a lack of foreign policy knowledge. According to McCain a vital moment in Pakistani history was when General Musharraf became president and lifted the country out of anarchy as he considered Pakistan a failed state in the late 1990s. Pakistan was not a failed state, instead it was a transitioning democracy with a weak and corrupt leadership that got overthrown by a military dictatorship (Musharraf). So much for McCain caring about the spread of Democracy. Comments like those show that he has little understanding of foreign affairs (and lack of consistency between his beliefs and actions).

An important distinction needs to be drawn between McCain the military expert and McCain the foreign policy expert. McCain is knowledgeable on how the military functions and probably has a decent understanding of its capabilties. However, he is not a foreign policy expert. Most of his “foreign policy” actions in the Senate involve military matters. But when it comes to foreign policy McCain comes up short. He does have an interest in foreign policy, but at times he fails to grasp certain realities of how world politics work.