BuzzMachine

Issues2004: 30 issues in 30 seconds

: Fred Wilson quite properly busts me for dropping the Issues2004 ball. I dealt with the issues that mattered to me most (see the list on the right of the home page or follow this link) but intended to come back and at least touch on the rest. I didn't. My bad. If you want a good and comprehensive discussion of many issues, see Brian Lehrer's 30 Issues in 30 Days on WNYC). I have the time to give them only short shrift but here goes:

: Judicial appointments: Yes, Chief Justice Rhenquist having thyroid cancer brings this issue to the top of the heap. And it's pretty obvious that judicial appointments are the biggest thorn in this tiger's paw when it comes to thinking of voting for Bush. There are so many issues that matter to our daily lives that I do not want in the hands of a right-wing court -- many having to do with strict interpretation (how's that for spinning?) of the separation of church and state as it affects efforts to legislate one side's morality regarding abortion, homosexuality, marriage, science, and religious freedom. This is the wisdom of the founding fathers; this is how they get us to think past just one issue. Ideology matters and it matters most for the Supreme Court. See Fred Wilson's post today.

: The deficit: Yes, these are extraordinary times, with a downturn to deal with and a war on -- and I mean the war on terrorism and Islamic fascists (take your rhetorical pick) more than just the war in Iraq. So it's not easy to balance the budget. But we should at least try. And I don't trust either guy on this. Bush cynically lowered taxes without responsibly cutting spending. Kerry has not made clear how he'll pay for his promises. We need responsible budgeting especially now that we are intertwined with the world economy and we, the voters, need to start demanding it.

: Gay rights: For them. Period.

: Death penalty: Against it. Period.

: Freedom of speech: For it. Absolutely.

: Abortion rights: Leave it the way it is.

: Stem-cell research: It's not abortion and efforts to tie this research to the abortion fight are cynical and ultimately destructive of important science that can save lives. Supporting this research is very much about maintaining a culture of life.

: Social Security: This isn't a simple one-liner (well, none of them is). We need to reexamine what our national goal is: If it is to maintain a national pension scheme, then, yes, I see sense in allowing us to invest our own. If, on the other hand, it is to assure a safety net for our elders, which I certainly support, then we need to look at this as a tax funding an entitlement. We're trying to mix the two now. This potato is too hot for any politician to handle. And so I say give it to the 9/11 Commission. No, I'm serious: Take a bunch of respected political yesterdays and make them grapple with it and come to consensus and fight for it so the politicians can blame them.

: Immigration: I don't believe the rest of the world has an inalienable right to come here (hell, Canada gave me trouble about moving there once). That's the way the world works. I also find efforts to give noncitizens local voting rights ridiculous; citizenship means something, damnit. Further, immigration is a security issue these days. So I'm not the most open regarding immigration and believe it is OK to judge immigration on two scales: humanity (allowing refugees to come, keeping families together) and self-interest (bringing in smart technicians and students is good for America). I also think we can't keep on giving amnesties and neverminds, for then our immigration laws become meaningless. If the laws don't work -- and in many ways, they don't -- then we need to fix them and not work around them.

: Israel: I support Israel and its right to be a nation. Yes, I believe the world has a special obligation to assure the security of Jews after everything that happened in the last century. Though I may sympathize with the Palestinians' right to have a nation, I abhor their tactics of terrorism -- especially today -- and so I do not believe we should deal with them until they stop murder for political gain.

: Gun control: The founding fathers didn't say which arms. Yes, we must have controls on certain people and certain weapons and you can scream at me all day long -- don't bother -- I will still say this. I am a First Amendment absolutist but I do think we can restrict people from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or jeopardizing troops in war by giving their positions. Similarly, I understand the right granted by the Second Amendment but believe any reasonable soul has to agree that keeping weapons out of the hands of nuts and restricting weapons intended only for murder on a large scale is necessary. All others belong to the NRA.

: Trade: We're part of the world and need to have open trade. There isn't a lot of choice about that these days.

: The environment: Yes, it matters. But I also see too much thrown in under this PC tent. In my town, building ball fields becomes an environmental issue. I like the environment more than I like environmentalists.

: The draft and national service: No. Serving our country has many definitions and working for government, armed or unarmed, is only one of them.

So that's my list. It's short shrift, as I said, but in the interest of continuing the Issues2004 discussion.... join in....

Issues2004: What else

: I'm continuing to write the Issues2004 posts but the time has come to ask you what issues we should include. See a list of what I've covered over on the right and the posts here. Those are most of my hot buttons (though not all... still need to grapple with the econmy, for example). But I want to know what you think I should cover. I don't promise to cover them. And it doesn't matter a bit whether I do; this is the farthest thing from an authoritative list. But it is yielding good discussion of issues -- instead of mud -- and so what are the other issues we should be discussing in this campaign?

Issues2004 Communications

: This might sound like a special-interest issue: Internet exec and blogger wants to hear the candidates encourage the development of technology and communications. But it's more that, of course. Technology is a strategic issue that affects our economy, our jobs, our children's education, our health, our foreign relations.

Communications creates opportunity.

My basic message is simple: Deregulate the hell out of techology and communication. Let them grow on their own.

Start with spectrum. I recently suggested, only half-jokingly, that we should buy the 11 percent of Americans who still have rabbit ears cable boxes so we can free up all that sprectrum to do great new things. David Isenberg made an impassioned plea at Susan Crawford's Nethead-v-Bellhead conference for a kind of trickle-down-come-flood economics of technology deregulation: While FCCheads were nitpicking tortured details of tariffs to pay for universal service, David said that if they'd just tear the regulation away, there would be more bandwidth, more service, more of everything for everybody.

So shoot the FCC.

Doc had a great post lately (which I can't find in his archives) arguing to get the FCC out of regulation of spectrum and speech. Amen.

If we did that, imagine what would grow. Look at the huge and now-lucrative industries that have sprung up around the internet and cellular and now wi-fi. The media industry will explode in great new ways -- and don't forget that media and entertainment are a top export for America. Education will improve with greater resources and connectivity. Even foreign relations will improve as citizens talk with citizens around the world; you want better understanding of the world, just hook us up (and forget that extra half-hour of Dan Rather, Andy Rooney).

Communications creates opportunity.

We need to make it a priority to connect everyone on high-speed. If we don't, we will fall behind so many nations that are now ahead of us in connectivity. We'l fall behind in innovation next. And then in economics.

Rather than appointing more regulators over the internet, communications, and technology, I'd like to see a President appoint a Chief Deregulator, whose job it is to cut through the kudzu of regulation on behalf of these industries: expose the stupid rules, get rules killed, lobby for our future from within government rather than from without.

I leave it to far wiser and more experienced minds than mine -- start with Isenberg ... and all of you -- to get down to specifics.

I cannot find an internet policy on either candidate's site. It may be there, but it's clearly a low priority.

Other Issues2004 posts here. Also see the list on the main page blogroll.

: Here's Dan Gillmor's good column on these and other technology issues.

Issues2004: The blogroll

: At the suggestion of a reader, I've added links to all the Issues2004 posts and comments as well as the Technorati cosmos for each in the right-hand column ...

: THURSDAY UPDATE: See Fred Wilson's response to my foreign affairs post here.

Issues2004: Election reform

: Every time I scream and shout about protecting the First Amendment (and Howard Stern) against the repression of the FCC, a commenter or two whines that I don't similarly defend free speech when it comes to federal election laws limiting contributions. I ignored them -- first because it pisses them off (hey, a blogger has to have some fun) and second because I honestly don't know what I think about election reform. It's a one-hand/other-hand thing for me.

On the one hand, as an absolutist on free speech and the First Amendment, I agree with those commenters that free speech should extend to elections -- of all activities.

On the other hand, I am concerned about the lobbyists and special-interest groups and now hate groups using their money to hijack elections.

On another hand, if we limit some people but then allow the Bloombergs and Corzines to come in and spend their wealth to get elected, then that is unfair to all of us who aren't rich.

On yet another hand, I think it's ridiculous that we individuals are limited on what we can spend on a candidate; it's our country and our money, eh?

And on another hand, I wonder whether the limitations on candidate contributions are only channelling more money to fringe groups like the Swifties and MoveOn and thus only fueling the mudslinging and nastiness of this campaign.

Anybody have few extra hands?

In the end, I think we're trying to approach this from the wrong end. We are trying to legislate ethics -- with politicians, of all people. And it's not going to work.

Election laws and the loopholes that magically appear in them only provide ethical cover for politicians, parties, and pressure groups to go ahead and game the system however they can. Hey, it's not my fault, they say when caught with mud on their hands; I'm following the law.

So what we should be doing instead is pressuring the political parties to adopt their own voluntary standards for ethical campaigning and slamming those who don't. Election reform should come from within the parties. They should limit their spending and refuse some contributions and those who don't are only revealing themselves as slime.

Media -- and citizens online -- should monitor their financial behavior closely, for I still believe that everything should be transparent.

We also need to shorten the election schedule. This torture goes on way too long. We do need time to push the candidates and smoke out the bozos (read: Dean) but we don't need this much time. It only adds to the bile and the bill.

At the same time, we need to reform the primary process, for it disenfranchises too many Americans from the selection of candidates.

And, finally, I agree with those who say it's time to blow up the Electoral College, which also disenfranchises voters (see: 2000).

We need to rebuild the primary and election process around the principle of one person, one vote -- and mean it. Then the candidates will have to campaign to all citizens and won't be able to ignore those in "safe" states.

Finally, yes, I'll agree that we need to respect the free-speech right of Americans to put their money where their votes are. On principle, I do have a problem with limiting what we can contribute. That's why I'd prefer to see candidates and parties agree to limit on their own what they accept.

One more thing: Once upon a time, I might have argued that it was important to give candidates free airtime -- on "our airwaves" -- as a quid pro quo for the free spectrum we give broadcasters. But I'm not so hot on that idea today for two reasons: First, TV ads are turning into the most destructive bullets of campaigns and fringe groups. Second, the internet will overtake TV as an important medium for campaigning and it will offer more depth and diversity.

That's what I say. What do you say? (Other Issues2004 posts here.)

Issues2004: Experts speak

: Blog reader Dave Schuler got Lynne Kiesling, whom he describes as a genuine expert in energy policy, to repond to my Issues2004 post on energy policy. Read on.

Issues2004: Responses

: Fred Wilson has the best response to an Issues2004 post today: He quotes liberally (uh, I mean generously) from the comments to the original post. Fred says that original post was just "OK" and he's exactly right about that; this isn't about my posts (in which I keep reminding everybody that I'm the farthest thing from an expert; I'm just another voter); it is about the discussion, when in the comments or in their blogs people who know a helluvalotmore than I do (see: Gillmor) come in to share what they know. That's what the medium is all about. And this is the proof. See: Given half a chance, we will discuss issues. (And we don't have to join the League of Women Voters.)

: ALSO... A reader asked me to put up a sidebar list of links to all the Issues2004 posts. I'll try to get to that; busy right now; in the meantime, the category page will get you all the posts and links to all the comments here.

Fred Wilson also suggested that Technorati set up a page of links to posts here and elsewhere that use the Issues2004 headline. I passed it onto Dave Sifry but, well, he has been a bit busy this last week literally fighting fires.

Issues2004: Foreign Policy

: Here's the toughest one -- not just because the problems frequently look unsolvable and because the relations are often acidic but also because I don't know enough about foreign relations.

I follow the news like a responsible citizen -- though I'll admit that I tend to wait until a part of the world heats up before I catch up. I've warned in all these Issues2004 posts that I'm not an expert and I'm writing these merely as a voter and a citizen but in this category I want to add an extra cup of caveat. So now to the point...

Neither side has yet devised a doctrine of foreign policy that works for the world today.

I don't object to the words "preemptive war" (now that I'm a liberal hawk and I'm rather intense on the topic of terrorism). But the problem with that Bush doctrine is that you put yourself in the position of proving that you're preempting something. You're buying the WMD problem. And you're fighting a hypothetical. Nonetheless, if people believed that a nation or those that nation supports could or would come after us, they would support a war of preemption. But the standard of proof his now nearly impossible to find.

I have supported the war in Iraq on different justification: essentially the Tom Friedman doctrine. I believe it was a proper -- and liberal -- humanitarian goal to liberate a people from their tyrant. I stand by that justification. I now see that knowing what we knew, we should have gone in to liberate Germany and Europe and the Jewish people far sooner than we did; what suffering we could have ended. But I also clearly see the problem with this doctrine: Who plays God? Who's the devil? Which tyrants do you choose to take out? Shouldn't we liberate North Korea? Shouldn't we be shuttling to Africa when wars and tragedy break out? Is Saudi Arabia oppressive enough to liberate? And isn't there a danger -- a history -- of using this doctrine not to liberate but to overturn for political convenience (pick your own examples of that)? This is not, as we say today, a doctrine that scales. That's not to say it is bankrupt; there are times when we must liberate a people or take the responsibility for their suffering. But this becomes a know-it-when-you-see-it policy and it's tough to manage that.

The second half of the Friedman doctrine is that we needed to establish a beachhead of democracy (and modernity, capitalism, education, and prosperity among citizens) in the Arab Middle East. This comes closest to my view of a winning worldview. I don't mean that we invade every country that is not a democracy. But I do mean that we set democracy and freedom of choice for every citizen as the expected standard of nations. We must use economic and diplomatic means -- and, yes, sometimes military will -- to secure demoracy. It's enlightened self-interest. Every human deserves a vote (I do not buy for one second that some nations are not ready for democracy; that is abhorrent political snobbery). And democracies are far less likely to be a threat to the rest of the world. We should expect the United Nations -- of all political bodies! -- to support universal democracy as a goal and hold it and its member states to that standard.

Finally, there is what I'll call the Kerry doctrine of cooperation. He wants to get other nations and the U.N. into Iraq (but I agree with those who say there's a snowball's chance in Baghdad that will happen). He thinks we should work harder to gather consensus among nations. That's a fine goal, by the sound of it, but we cannot set that as the standard or else we find ourselves hostage to the French et al. We have to face up to the fact that we are the remaining superpower. Nations do look to us to take an active role in the world and we should. Of course, there will be no agreement about every case (we had people screaming at us to get into Liberia and we had people screaming at us to stay out of Iraq). So we have to set our own standards.

So what are those standards? In foreign policy, they are never clear cut. That's why diplomacy is diplomacy: It's politics without laws.

But I think when we turn foreign policy around and look at it from the rights and needs of the individual worldwide, we at least have a clear starting point:

1. We must support the growth and strength of democracy. The vote and control of the governed over government must be seen as a fundamental human right. In this age of worldwide person-to-person communication, the internet will begin to tear down dictatorships. We need to help. We should support democracies with economic relationships and, when need be, military protection. We should reward moves toward democracy and shun leaders who resist.

2. We must protect our citizens -- our children and the children of other nations -- against the demonstrated and growing threat of Islamic fascism and so we must use the means at our disposal -- economic, diplomatic, and military -- to root out the terrorists and bring down those who support them. They didn't say it this way, Lord knows, but that's the inevitable conclusion of the 9/11 Commission: If you fail to prevent the next attack, you will be blamed.

3. We must respond to human suffering under tyrannical regimes. That response clearly will vary but it is a justification for action.

I'm writing these Issues2004 posts to put my bandwidth where my mouth is. I want us to talk issues, I need to start the ball rolling. But, again, I emphasize that I'm no expert on these topics; you can see why I'm not likely to replace Condie Rice! Still, that's where I start the discussion. Over to you.

Issues2004: Energy police

: This is an easy one, right?

We want to end our dependency on foreign oil, right?

Then why the hell have we not made one damned inch of progress toward that goal?

My big break as a cup reporter came in '73-'74, when I worked for Chicago Today (a paper that had no tomorrow) and ended up covering the energy crisis. I lucked into covering gas lines and ended up on the front page day after day because -- if you're old enogh to remember, you will remember -- we were caught in a national gasoline panic. There were shortages and lines everywhere. Prices skyrocketed. Price controls hovered. We vowed we would get out from under the thumb of the Arab oil oligarchy.

How soon we forget, huh?

We're just as dependent upon foreign oil today as we were then. And, no, I'm not going to go blaming SUV drivers (who often buy for the four-wheel-drive, not the extra ton). It's bigger than that.

It's a failing of government policy and business innovation and national will at every level.

And now we are paying the price. Oh, boy, are we. So what should we do about it? Well, as I emphasize in all these Issues2004 posts, I am no expert. But I'll start here:

: Gasoline: We must reduce our driving dependency on gasoline. Hybrid engines are a start, at last. So let's find every possible way to encourage more gas efficiency. I suggest a self-liquidating, Peter-Paul tax that gives rebates to efficient car buyers paid for by inefficient car buyers. It's not a tax. It's a transfer of wealth and energy ethics.

: Nuclear power: I would far rather deal with the devil atom than the devil Arab. I'm as freaked as the next guy at scenes from China Syndrome. But it's time to get over our nuclear jitters. I now (suddenly) believe that the more we can generate energy with nuclear power, the better. Let's be smart. Let's be safe. But let's not be stupid and let our fears of nukes prevent us from using this using this powerful energy source.

: R&D: We have to cut through all limitations to create a Manhattan Project for energy independence, bringing together academics and corporate scientists -- antitrust be damned -- to find new ways to reduce our oil addiction. This includes reducing regulation and increasing tax advantages for R&D and even creating the means for scientists to communicate openly. You want to have a 9/11 Commission that actually accomplishes something meaningful for our future and our safety, start the Energy Commission and put former Presidents on it along with CEOs of energy and auto companies and energy utilities.

: Reduce Arabs' dependence, too: As we cut the Arab world off from dependence on our oil dollars, we must replace it with new economic relationships not with Arab governments but with the Arab people: That is, we must create jobs via commerce and, yes, outsourcing. Otherwise, we'll only create more desperation and anger. If we do this properly, we transfer prosperity and economic power from corrupt Arab governments to the Arab people.

Your thoughts?

Issues2004: Education

: My issue with education is that we keep attacking the bottom without pushing the top.

Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative is a fine thing. Kerry doesn't fight it on his site and vows to go enforce it. Fixing bad schools is vital. Nobody can disagree with that.

I have one complaint about the initiative: its reliance on testing. I say we already depended way too much on on testing, from standardized measures in elementary schools through the dreaded SATs. I know testing doesn't treat all students fairly or accurately. We all know that teachers and school systems reorder themselves to game the test: they teach the test rather than teach. And the industry that has popped up around gaming the SATs is an offensive waste of money and brainpower. Still, I understand that you can't measure whether children have been left behind without testing them. So fine.

I also understand the resource and effort put into mainstreaming children with educational difficulties of all sorts. It's good for those children and good for those around them. I'm not going to be politically incorrect about this. But make no mistake about it: The cost is tremendous. Every extra dollar a district can find goes into extra attention for children with problems of one sort or another.

At the same time, all across the country, we've worked so hard to level playing fields that we don't let the best stand out; it's damned near politically incorrect in some districts to be smart. In my day, we "tracked" students by ability and I believe that worked well for everyone; it pushed the best to do their best and it didn't intimidate the rest and allowed them to do their best as well. Tracking is out now.

Well, if fixing bad schools is all we do, and if extra resources mostly go to children with problems, and if we make everyone equal -- if we put all this effort into raising the lowest common denominator -- then we'll give short shrift to another important job: We also have to raise the nominator. We have to challenge the best and the brightest. We must nurture genius.

I would have hoped that Bush, as a Republican, as a business President, could have framed this properly: Great education is our best investment. The more we train students to innovate in science and technology and math and the arts (remember that entertainment is a huge industry and gigantic export), the more we inspire them to create, the better chance we have to profit and compete and grow. Education is not just a social issue but a business issue.

So what do we do about that? The problem is that whenever we talk about improving education, it means money. Special programs for children with special needs costs money. Special programs for gifted kids costs money. Funding research costs money. Voters -- and talk-show hosts -- everywhere complain about that. But teachers still don't earn much (and that affects the quality of teachers we get). Vicious cycle.

Look at Bush's plan or Kerry's and you'll find lots of proposals for lots of programs. I'm no expert, as I've emphasized in all these Issues2004 posts. So I can't really dig into all their suggestions and say what will work and won't. But I do know that many of us are frustrated with this vicious cycle; we want better education. I simply think that pushing the top is almost as important and beneficial as fixing the bottom.

Your priorities?

Issues2004

: Fred Wilson has posted two more good replies to my Issues2004 posts on health insurance and homeland security. If you've posted replies on your blogs, please leave links in the comments; the point of this is to discuss the issues so let's discuss. (And now I feel guilty I haven't posted the next one, having wasted time on Dan Rather and all that. Shame on me.)

Issues2004: Homeland security

: This post will be unlike the prior Issues2004 because it's more personal and, yes, emotional and less specific; I have to begin with my perspective on terrorism and I'm not sure where to end on homeland security.

Of course, witnessing terrorism firsthand changed my view of war. In front of my blog readers three years ago, I lost my '60s-legacy pacifism and became the liberal hawk. I also reordered all my political priorities. Terrorism is real. Protecting ourselves and our children is our most vital task. This is a president's most important job. This is the issue voters care about above all others.

So you would think that our strategy and resolve would be utterly clear but they were not; that's how the 9/11 Commission drove a truck through the hole in our national debate. I blame neither side for this; I blame both. I'm not sure why we are not more united on at least this front. Perhaps it's denial, perhaps its odd American optimism, I don't know.

But we must affirm and reaffirm that we are at war and that we must protect against our enemy.

I'm scared to death of these fascist lunatics who are our enemy. This makes me tolerant of a lot. The more they check us in the airport, the better. Want to pass along data about me and my travels from the airline to the government? No problem; I won't be one of those people screeching about privacy. What's private? I'm on the plane in public. I have nothing to hide and everything to gain. More cops? Great! Interview foreigners? Well, who else? Check cargo? I wish we could afford to search it all. Patriot Act? You don't hear me wailing about it. Our ancestors gave up butter and nylon stockings in other wars. We can give up a little data.

I never want to witness what I saw on September 11th again. Yes, I am willing to give up privacy to help assure that. And, no, I don't think we need to give up fundamental rights. We have a Constitution and courts that protect those rights; I have faith in that.

But I also know that government cannot protect and provide for us like God in Eden. I did not join in the finger-pointing of the 9/11 Commission; I saw no point in fooling ourselves into thinking that we could have prevented the attacks.

I also have not joined in the stampede to adopt the 9/11 Commission's recommendations without debate. As I've said often (see the links atop this post), I'd prefer to see our leaders debate the recommendations rather than blindly adopting them and thinking that will make us safe.

I'd prefer to see the candidates falling over themselves to outdo the Commission and find better solutions. Instead, they played catchup with the Commission. That makes homeland security too easy. That's fooling ourselves.

But the candidates do have more than just the 9/11 Commission stands on their own web sites. Here is Bush's and here is Kerry's. I say, yes, give us all that and more. I wish we didn't have to do this. I wish we didn't have to spend all this money to fight this enemy. But we do.

So I don't have a specific wish-list on this issue except to have the confidence that future presidents in years to come will do what they can to protect us. On a recent Bill Maher show, noted security expert and foundering sitcom star Jason Alexander said that no president will or can afford to drop the ball on homeland security and I agree with that. It's our job to keep the pressure on and not think that we've ever solved this problem and to support the measures needed.

Your ideas?

Issues2004

: When I started the Issues2004 posts, I hoped there'd be good (on-topic) discussion in the comments. That's happening. Thank you! I also hoped others would respond on their blogs. That's happening. See Fred Wilson on Iraq here. Fred also suggests that other bloggers should post under that headline structure -- e.g., Issues2004: Education. (That also would allow us to search Technorati or our RSS feeds for those headlines and -- next time -- to put all those posts in a category and produce RSS feeds of them; this is a way for people to gather around this campire talk or that.)

Issues2004: Iraq II

: A followup on yesterday's Issues2004 post on Iraq:

I don't believe we have heard from either candidate a clear strategy and tactical plan for victory in Iraq -- that is, for bringing security and democracy to the country, which is now our moral and political responsibility; that is the goal I set forth below.

I haven't heard it clearly from Bush. His actions speak louder than word and so far, sorry to say, his actions do not reveal a plan for victory.

And last night, I added to the post below Kerry's four-point plan on Iraq. But that troubled me as well. First, Kerry is not going for victory; he is going for withdrawl. Second, his means of withdrawl depends upon something I cannot see happening: namely, the entry of the U.N. and other countries into that literal minefield. You can kiss Annin ass and French ass and German ass and Russian ass as much as you want and I don't see them coming in to -- let's call a spade a spade -- rescue us from Iraq.

David Brooks said it, too, today in The Times:

The crucial passage in the speech was this one: "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: we must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden." From a U.S. responsibility, Iraq will become the world's
responsibility....

Rhetorically, this was his best foreign policy speech by far (it helps to pick a side). Politically, it was risky. Kerry's new liberal tilt makes him more forceful on the stump, but opens huge vulnerabilities. Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?

By picking the withdrawal camp, he has assigned himself a clear task. Right now 54 percent of likely voters believe that the U.S. should stay as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq, while 39 percent believe that we should leave as soon as possible. Between now and Nov. 2, Kerry must flip those numbers.

Substantively, of course, Kerry's speech is completely irresponsible. In the first place, there is a 99 percent chance that other nations will not contribute enough troops to significantly decrease the U.S. burden in Iraq. In that case, John Kerry has no Iraq policy. The promise to bring some troops home by summer will be exposed as a Disneyesque fantasy.

More to the point, Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat. If "the world" is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them. The consequences for the people of Iraq and the region will be horrific.

Issues2004: Iraq

: My stand on Iraq: Out of moral obligation and enlightened self-interest, we must stay and assure that the nation gains security and democracy. Easier said than done, sure. But first we need to say it.

No matter what your view of the Iraq war, this remains true: If we leave Iraq too soon, we are screwing the Iraqi people again and we are setting the perfect conditions for more terrorism and instability in the region, then the world, including our homefront.

My view of the Iraq war was: I supported the war but did not agree with Bush's rationale. WMD were speculative, a gamble, a ploy for international support that was doomed to failure. It set him up for the fall that came. My support was humanitarian and practical; it was, I've argued, a liberal stand: We knew that Saddam was a tyrant torturing his people and depriving them of basic rights. We should have gotten rid of him the first time around. I'm also a Tom Friedman hawk here; I believe we need to establish a foothold for democracy in the Islamic Middle East and Iraq was as good a place as any. And byi this logic, I'll acknowledge, it doesn't necessarily stop at Iraq: There are other tyrants; there are other places there that deserve democracy (try: everywhere).

But I also believe that we have mucked up the aftermath to war horribly for the Iraqis and for our forces. We have done worse than squander an opportunity. We are creating a problem for the future. We didn't plan. We didn't execute the plan we didn't make. We are now foisting this unfairly onto Iraqi shoulders. If we don't act quickly to shore up security, all will be lost.

But I also refuse to call the people killing for the sake of killing in Iraq today "insurgents' or even "revolutionaries." They are terrorists, murderers, thugs. Where is their great principle of revolution? It doesn't exist. They are only about defeat for the other side, about terror for terror's sake.

The cause of bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq -- as an example for the Middle East -- remains a good and hopeful one. '

And so I want to see a candidate give me a strong and clear plan for bringing security to Iraq and for supporting open and peaceful elections. Then I want to see a plan for ongoing security. And then I want to see a plan for other American relationships with Iraq that will build a stronger connection, especially business connections to create jobs and prosperity. That will defeat Islamic extremism better than anything.

(This is one of a series of posts on Issues2004. I'll repeat that I'm no expert on this; I'm posting my wishlist in various issues in the hopes of sparking unmuddy debate.)

: Want to read more from the candidates? Good luck. Oddly -- frighteningly -- I can't find an Iraq page per se on the Kerry site. We're in a friggin' war there and there isn't a page about what to do about it on his site. Ditto Bush. He's the President who put his there. Correct me if I'm wrong; find it if you can. Unlike other issues, there isn't a clear page; to put it in our dorky terms, this should be part of the user interface for the campaigns. But I find no clear statement on an issue that matters to most Americans.

This is what media and we should be pressing the candidates about, not past-tense mud.

: UPDATE: Well, this doesn't make me feel better. Novak's column today:

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go....

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.

The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party....

: UPDATE: Kerry gave a speech with is four-point plan for Iraq. I'm not impressed.

First, he said, he would work towards more international support. Mr. Kerry noted that the president is scheduled to visit New York on Tuesday to speak to the United Nations about Iraq.

"The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly," Mr. Kerry said....

Secondly, Mr. Kerry said, he would work harder to train Iraqi security forces.

He pointed out that in February Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. But Mr. Kerry asserted that in reality only 5,000 Iraqi soldiers had been trained "by the administration's own minimal standards."...

Third, he said he would devise a better plan for the reconstruction of a devastated Iraq.

"Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq." Mr. Kerry said. " It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers."

And lastly, he said he would make sure elections would take place in the country.

"Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role," Mr. Kerry said. "Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. secretary general and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt."

Issues2004: Health care

: There can be no doubt that we are living in a health-care crisis in this country:

Too many are uninsured. Costs are too high at every level: doctor, hospital, drug, insurance. Insurance companies are trying to save money by making everyone's life so miserable it's just easier and cheaper to die. Paperwork alone is torture. Doctors are squeezed by malpractice suits and insurance -- and paperwork. Hospitals are suffering. Employees who have insurance feel trapped by the jobs. Employers who offer insurance are seeing costs grow at incredible rates (40 percent in one year at one company I know). And on and on.

All the solutions proposed so far are inadequate and don't begin to address the fundamental flaws, inequity, and illogic of the system. I'm not for nationalizing health care. But neither am I for letting the uninsured suffer.

This post is the first in a series on Issues2004. Remember that I am not an expert in any of these areas, nor did I report on them. I'm just a voter. And that's the point. I want to learn more about these issues and want to have the forum to help push the candidates on these issues.

My wish list on health care:

: All citizens must be insured: If a prosperous society cannot help the sick among us, then what good is the prosperity?

Basic tenant: Every citizen (yes, citizen) of this country should be covered by health insurance and a prescription drug plan.

This also means that every citizen should receive the benefits of being part of a group. The serendipity of my getting insurance with my colleagues at one rate while my neighbor, who's self-employed, gets higher rates is unfair, unjust, illogical, stupid, harmful, wrong.

And it's expensive: Those who cannot afford insurance people end up going to hospitals and getting care that has to be paid for with higher rates for the rest of us, which means that insurance companies and employers and thus employees and consumers end up paying for the uninsured anyway. It's broken. The only way to fix it is with the fundamental promise that all are insured. If we're insured to drive, we should be insured to live.

: Insurance remains private: Who should run insurance? Government or industry. I say industry. The last thing we need is another inefficient and irksome government bureacracy. We need competition. We need choice.

: But who should pay? Think about it: By what logic should should employers have to be the ones who pay for health insurance? What started as a benefit of employment has become an entitlement for many, but then the rest are left out in the cold. Offering health insurance via work makes no sense.

My hope is that we all pay according to our needs with aid for those who need it. So I get a good group rate (see above). I earn a lot of money. I pay for my insurance. If I want, I can buy the deluxe insurance. If rates are fixed, most should pay for a good share of their own insurance (instead of paying taxes or higher product costs to indirectly subsidize their insurance).

Government support comes in a few forms: Those who help supplement insurance costs for employees or the poor get tax credits; that is one form of government support. Those who earn little and pay for their insurance get tax credits; that is another form of government support. Those who cannot afford to pay anything get on Medicare and Medicaid; that is another form of government support.

Who pays for that government support? We all do, of course, in the form of business and individual taxes. But run properly, this will end up being more efficient than the present system. And -- pardon my lapse into supply-side social program economics -- but the less companies have to build these costs into budgets indirectly, the better salaries and prices will be in the longrun. (Debate below.)

: Who should pay for R&D?: It is similarly illogical that through high drug costs, the sick underwrite R&D for new drugs to cure other diseases they don't have. I don't know how this system works today but it seems logical that government should help underwrite some cost of development -- and then get the benefit for all of us of lower prices for the drugs that result.

I'll say this again later, but I will add here: I support stem-cell research. I support science.

: The paperwork torture must end: Insurance companies are managing costs via harassment, in paperwork and in "managed care." As I understand it, one great thing Canada did was standardize paperwork and bureacracy. With the Internet, it is now possible to standardize and modernize this entire system, from doctor to hospital to pharmacy to insurance company. It reduces the costs considerably for doctors and hospitals (and that should stop some of their complaining) and it reduces the hassle for us, the sick.

: Malpractice should be limited: But the threat of malpractice must remain over the heads of incompetent practitioners. We are still consumers of health care. We reserve the right to go after bad doctors -- protecting fellow consumers from them -- the way we can after bad contractors. And, yes, lawyers must stop being the primary beneficiary of the malpractice system.

: We must grapple with extreme care: I don't want anyone unplugging me and letting me starve or choke to death. No thanks. And I hate seeing old people treated like the leftovers at garage sales. But I also recognize that some care is extreme and costs everyone a great deal of money for buying little hope. Who should set and enforce the standards of what is covered and is not? I don't know. Debate below.

Here is Bush's health stand. Here (with additional links on the side) is Kerry's health stand. And what do you have to say?

: UPDATE: TB in the comments raises a good point: People who don't take care of themselves cost the system and us. So how about higher rates for people who not only smoke but, what else?, get fat, don't exercise, don't get preventive tests on a set schedule....

: UPDATE: A previous post on this topic is here. It caused good discussion and I wanted to link to it ... but disorganized mess that I am, I couldn't find it. Thanks to Brett, here's the link.

Issues2004: A hopeful series

: I've been complaining for weeks/months about the mud-slinging that is overtaking coverage of this campaign in all media, from print to TV to, yes, blogs. I've been whining that we should be talking about issues.

But, of course, I've spent so much time whining that I've hardly talked about issues myself. So now I'll try.

When I did go on about health care in a recent post, I was delighted with the discussion that ensued. No forged documents. No angry assaults. Earnest efforts to discuss a solution to the problem.

So I'll write my wish list on the issues: health care, homeland security, Iraq, and so on.

But note importantly: I do not pretend to be expert in any of these areas nor to have reported on any of them. That's just the point: I'm a voter. I want experts and reporters to tear into the candidates' stands and I want the campaigns to talk about their stands so I can learn more -- and so I can join in the debate and, as a whole and in the longrun, so we can pressure candidates on these issues.

My hope in the comments is that you will add their views, from various sides of the prism. I also very much hope that you'll contribute links to blogs and sites that are covering these issues well. Or maybe nobody will care and they're just waiting for the next barrage of mud. Free country. Do as you wish.

The first up, above: health care.