The Comprehensive Dodge

I've been traveling, so time to catch up a bit. The following was submitted for possible publication in the local paper.

"I've noticed that over the past year or so a new word has crept into the Bush Administration's lexicon; it's the word "comprehensive."

On various occasions, Administration officials (including the President himself) have called for: a comprehensive immigration policy; a comprehensive solution to the sub-prime mortgage mess; a comprehensive energy policy; and a comprehensive mid-east solution.

Given their acknowledged ability to stay on message and approved talking points, I've decided that this must be more than the casual selection of words. And, also given their track record on these issues, I've concluded that "comprehensive" is a code word for "do nothing." It's sort of a late game substitution for "stay the course," which faded from use when no one could actually define the course, but it became obvious that a change was needed. Defining a problem in terms of needing a "comprehensive solution" has become a way of admitting that they no longer have the power to solve problems their way and that it is preferable not to attempt to solve them rather than compromise.

Immigration policy became comprehensive, when the Administration found that their pro-business/cheap labor open border policy ran up against an American majority, who reasonably observed that in the wake of 9/11 and the War on Terror it might be a good idea to control our borders and register some 15-20 million undocumented/illegal residents.

Comprehensive became the code word for the sub prime mortgage mess when the Administration accepted moral hazard (i.e. instituting a bad precedence) by bailing out the investment banking industry, but denying a similar responsibility for home owners undergoing foreclosure (other than a few ineffectual, feel-good programs).

Recently, and in the wake of $135/barrel oil and $4.00/gallon gas at the pump, the Secretary of Energy has, in Congressional testimony, referred to the need for a comprehensive energy policy, side-stepping the failure to anticipate rising world demand, the ramifications of a weak dollar, and a free market philosophy that considers "government" a dirty word.

And, the latest manifestation of "comprehensive" came last week with Condi Rice's remark in reference to a "comprehensive" mid-east solution. This followed the President's mid-east trip, wherein he followed-up his "foot-in-mouth" to the Israeli parliament (but it played well in Jerusalem), with a visit to Saudi Arabia.

There, he literally held hands with the Saudi absolute monarch (apparently an old Saudi custom, as was slavery until the nineteen seventies) and promised U.S. help in furthering the Saudis ambition toward "peaceful" nuclear power, by supplying them with light water reactor technology. [I'll bet the Israelis would be happy to swap the parliament speech for that promise.] Unfortunately, this smooth talking devil's (that's complimentary Texas slang, along the same lines as Slick Willy), who once looked into Putin's eyes and saw his soul, foreplay was rejected by the Saudis, who refused his request for additional oil production to ease our price at the pump. In the wake of these events, the solution for the mid-east acquired the "comprehensive" adjective.

Despite holding hands with kings, this Administration has never been known for its subtle diplomacy or ability to reach political compromise. But, in its waning days, and in face of a Democratic Congress and failed policies in immigration, the economy, energy and the mid-east, has chosen to merely substitute the term "comprehensive solution" in lieu of its prior "it's my way or the highway" approach.

Maybe, in the great scheme of things that's progress of a sort, but it's too little, too late...comprehensively, so to speak."

Other notes:

Strikes me as a bit strange that McCain, who received his entire college education courtesy of the U.S. government, objects to same for G.I.'s serving in Iraq? And, attacking Obama on the grounds that he can't know what sound military policy should be because he was never in uniform is...well...sort of like criticizing Dick Cheney for sitting out the Vietnam War on student deferments. It's a dangerous assumption for democracy that a "civilian" President, who has never served in the armed forces can't know what sound national security policy is. And, if McCain personally figured all of this out while a prisoner of the Vietnamese, why didn't he make Admiral? Or, for that matter, been more insistent on a stronger military during his years of senatorial wisdom? Prediction: By the end of this campaign, we will come to understand McCain as a very scary fellow.

However, that said, he made the right move in denouncing the reverends over their comments on Hitler and the Jews and the founding of America based on ridding the world of Islam. Now the question becomes: Can he really win the Presidency without the crazies?

On an Obama VP. Some talking head on CNN observed that if he picks Hillary, he'll need to hire a food taster. Still feel Richardson would be the best choice. As much as the talking heads would like to make it an issue of race or gender, in the last analysis it's about policy and experience (although not the kind of experience Hillary talks about). Richardson brings administrative and foreign policy experience to the ticket, not to mention the added "racial bonus" of being half-Hispanic.

On oil exec's testimony before Congress. The good news is that they contradicted one another as to causes for the oil price increases. Some said it was a supply/demand problem; others said they were meeting demand and it was a speculation problem, etc. The bad news is that they contradicted one another as to causes for the oil price increases. If they don't know, who does? Maybe it's "all of the above." Hmmm? Commies gave "planning" a bad name...seems as if private enterprise can't do much better. Does anyone find it curious that the price of oil has risen from $1.70/gallon to $4.00/gallon over the lifetime of an Administration led by an ex-Texas oil man and a former CEO of an oil field supply company? Naw....

On FLDS polygamy situation in Texas and handling thereof...now we know why the FLDS picked Texas.

I believe that Texas may be the only state in the union that preserved the right to succession, if they so choose to do so. This might be an appropriate time to encourage them to exercise that right...and, yes, I was born in Dallas.

On the Clinton candidacy. OK. I am content to have her play it out through the remaining primaries (Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico) and resolution of the Florida/Michigan primary vote. Following that, it appears to me that Obama will still have the majority of total votes, including "super delegates," and that her only arguments become: the states I won are more meaningful than the states he won and/or the super delegate vote is more important than the regular delegate vote. If she decides to pursue either of those courses, the Democratic Party has to threaten to withdraw its support from her future career as a Democratic candidate for any and every office - i.e. enough is enough. Many think that Bill ruined the chances for Democratic policy advances during his Presidency over the stupid issue of Monica (while simultaneously blaming the overreaction of Republicans).

Assumptions on remaining vote: 1) straight proportional vote on the remaining primaries; 2) "Super-Delegates" cast votes by mid-June. 3) Penalize Florida by reducing their delegates to three-fourths of nominal representations (logic is that it was a Republican Florida legislature that set the primary date and the Florida Democratic Party didn't have total control over the primary date; both names were on the ballot, although neither campaigned there). Then, apportion the remaining 75% of the Florida delegation to be seated by the primary vote. 4) Penalize Michigan by reducing their delegation by 50%, since apparently the state party DID have control of the primary date (if not...the same 25% reduction as Florida). In Michigan, however, Clinton was on ballot, while Obama was not. That's an unfair advantage for Clinton, off-set by the fact that she seems to have out-performed Obama among white, blue collar workers, off-set again, in Obama's favor by a predominately Detroit black vote. Split the reduced Michigan delegation evenly.

If, as a result of all of this, Obama goes into Denver as the Party's choice, Clinton should be content with either remaining in the Senate or a cabinet level position, in return for campaigning hard for Obama. If not...let her join Lieberman as an Independent.

Another Prediction: the Libertarians, with Bob Barr as its candidate, will out poll Ralph Nader nationally and give Obama an additional state or two in the general election...probably in the South.