Sarah Palin, you're breaking my heart.

I love Sarah Palin. She's basically every mom of every friend I had growing up in the Midwest, only way hotter. She's the new face of the new feminism (I can't even remember who the old face of the new feminism was anymore). She's everything Bush Republicanism could hope for in a not-so-much-ugly-old-white-man package. She's funny, she charming, she's got great taste in eye wear. She can shoot a gun and bake cookies and manage an entire state while raising a family. In other words, I want to build a time machine and marry her in place of the that bozo, pretty-boy Todd McGoofyPants. Why should he be so lucky?

But I don't want Sarah Palin to be my vice-president.

Gov. Palin has been/will be the downfall of the McCain campaign. For all the people who love her for all the same reasons I do (but who also plan on voting for her), there are even more Americans who see this selection for what it is: a desperate attempt by the McCain camp to seem younger, less Beltway, and more family friendly.

It's no secret McCain is old. It's no secret McCain has been involved in Washington politics for almost 30 years. And it's no secret that McCain has leaned centrist in the past when it come social conservatism. Picking Sarah Palin was supposed to solve all that. And for the Republican base, it did. But for the rest of America, it pretty much scared the bejesus out of us. I love Sarah Palin with all my heart. But she cannot, under any circumstances, be our vice-president in 2009. And this is why:

1) According to FactCheck.org (and check out their sources for further reading), until Palin became a VP candidate, she had no problems with the types of congressional earmarks John McCain has spent a good part of his career opposing. (McCain is on record as criticising three specific earmarks that went to Mayor Palin's old Wasilla stomping grounds; earmarks secured by a Washington lobbyist hired by Palin during her tenure as mayor.) She also failed to come out against the "Bridge to Nowhere" until after it was dead in Congress. And she still accepted the earmarked, pork-barrel funds anyway, spending them on her state's general transportation budget. We need someone who understands this budget mess. And Sarah Palin is not that someone.

2) Palin (along with McCain) also seriously misunderstands Obama's tax plan. Palin is on record criticising it as "painful tax increases on working American families." This in spite hard data that shows Obama's plan will lower taxes for 81% of all households (and 95% of those households with children), while raising them for those at the top of America's income bracket (those families making over $250,000 a year). Yes, rich people work, too. But chances are Joe Sixpack is making much less than a cool quarter-mil a year. Obama's tax plan takes care of him. And it's time for McCain-Palin to kill this stupid misconception/lie.

3) She has absolutely no experience in either of the biggest problems we are mired in today: managing a messy war in Iraq while simultaneously governing over a sluggish 13.8 trillion dollar economy. At the very least, McCain, Obama and Biden have congressional experience in these matters. Palin has managed the 45th largest economy of the United States of America for 22 months. This gives me pause. And these things tell me she just isn't ready for this position.

Two and half weeks ago conservative columnist David Brooks was quoted as saying that Palin was in no way ready to be vice-president:

"The more I follow politicians, the more I think experience matters, the ability to have a template of things in your mind that you can refer to on the spot, because believe me, once in office there's no time to think or make decisions."

What Brooks is saying here resonates tremendously with me. Presidents need to have wisdom, experience and a worldview in place before they take office, because once you're there, there's little time to formulate these things. You can't be catching up on William Buckley, Russell Kirk and Richard Weaver in the middle of a heated presidential campaign.

Maybe once Palin is safely ensconced in her vice-presidential office, she would have time for such things. But with McCain's age being what it is, she could be called on to serve as president before she is actually ready to be president. And because of that, I can't in good conscience vote for her. We just elected (and re-elected) a president who wasn't ready for the job, and look where that got us. We need to learn from our mistakes and vote for folks with the experience to lead from Day 1. Even Obama, with his political career only 12 years old, is light years ahead of Palin in that regard.

As a country in the midst of a teetering economic crisis, drawn out wars in the Middle East and Asia, problems with a resurgent Russian state, run-away health care costs and record budget deficits, we deserve a presidential team that's up to the task. And unfortunately, with Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket, the Republicans have failed to provide us with one. It's time to look elsewhere for a president if this is the best that McCain and the Republican Party can do.

In what respect, Charlie?

Don't worry Sarah Palin, I don't really understand the Bush Doctrine either. And neither do people who actually work/worked for President Bush.

Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine' (Washington Post)

One of my favorite quotes from the piece comes from Philip Zelikow, who worked for the White House and the State Department under the president:

"I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine...Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration's policies than they deserve."

Zing!

Ron Paul Is Nuts!

And I'm 90% with him.

Paul: Reject the major parties, go for a third (AP)

"The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two party system," Paul said in prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment, principled candidates.

He recommended Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, former Georgia Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party and possibly others."

I'm so fed if with the two-party crap-fest everyone else is gagga over that this kind of news makes me want to kiss Ron Paul on the mouth (chastely and platonicly, natch). Playing along for the moment, here are my thoughts on the aforementioned candidates.

1) Chuck Baldwin: This guy scares the bejebus out of me. He has ties to both the Moral Majority and the 9/11 Truth Movement. Also, he left the Republican party in 2000 because he felt GW Bush was too liberal. Yikes. I grew up with folks like this, and while I love them to death, I have no desire for them to run for president. Sorry, Freedom Farm.

2) Bob Barr: Barr is one cool cat (see: Glasses). He grew up travelling the globe; worked for the CIA; served as the most conservative congressman ever; supported the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act,  and the Iraq War before he was against them all; and now is a bonafide Libertarian. I can't tell if he's genuiely a new creation (politically speaking), but man, those glasses!

3) Cynthia McKinney: According to USA Today (which I trust forever and ever amen), Cynthia McKinney, a former Democtraic Congresswomen from Georgia, lost her seat in 2002 because of crossover voting from Republicans in the Democratic primary (they allow it). Additionally, she sort of suggested that President Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.

Ouch.

BUT, she hates depleted uranium, likes to make fun of Al Gore, has been extremely vocal about the plight of Katrina victims, and praised Hugo Chavez in her concession speech after she lost her seat in Congress for the second time. Come on, three out of four, right?

4) Ralph Nader: He's not on Ron Paul's list, but I'd rather sit at his feat than worship at the Church of Obama or Cranky-Pants McCain. Independent Lens ran a doc on him a while back that opened my eyes to all the crap he's gone through over the years. I mean, if you want to vote for a prophet for president, you don't have to look further than Nader. Hyperbole? Yes! Truth? Hells yes!!!1!11!

Exit Stage Left

Things still aren't going well in Iraq. While I still believe that we have an obligation to the people of Iraq to clean up the mess we've made, it's time to start asking the hard questions about withdrawal. The NY Times has a piece today with five tough questions we have to answer before we can think of a staged exit. Leaving won't be pretty if things don't get better soon. A complete withdrawal will take months. Casualties will increase sharply as we fight our way out. Over 100,000 Iraqi contractors who having been working for the U.S. will either have to be evacuated and relocated, or left to fend for themselves. Billions of dollars of ammunition and fuel would have to be left behind in a quick withdrawal, further fodder for a broiling civil war. And finally, a massive withdrawal could be the greatest logistical problem the U.S. military has ever seen. No one knows how much it will cost shipping the rest of our personal and equipment back to the States in case of a swift exit. There's nothing easy about a decision to withdraw from Iraq. In fact, the President's "stay-the-course" strategy might be the easier short-term decision. Knowing him, I wouldn't expect President Bush to deal with any of these questions during the remainder of his term.

Our next president will have his/her work cut out for them.

On War

Tomorrow marks the 4th anniversary of the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Four years and two days ago, I was in Haiti of all places, taking part in service project over spring break. I sat huddled around a radio in Phil and Lonnie Murphy's house, with a dozen other students, listening to President Bush address the nation (and in our case, the world). In that address he made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the United States was ready to invade Iraq in 48 hours unless Saddam Hussein left the country. He didn't. And three days later, while I was tagging along on a medical clinic somewhere in the Plaine de l'Artibonite east of Port-au-Prince, my nation attacked another nation. I missed the whole thing, until the very next day when we stumbled into the Hotel Montana (not kidding, it really exists) and caught the first images via CNN. We were at war.

It was surreal. I remember Phil being very concerned that Muslims worldwide would view the invasion as a holy war -- Christianity against Islam. I remember our group being divided, between our evangelical love of George W. Bush and our reticence to see America at war. Listening to the president on a transistor radio hundreds of miles from home, it almost felt like we were watching the whole thing from the outside. Viewing those first pictures of war four days later didn't do much to bridge the divide. While we were hanging out with orphans and missionary kids and AIDS patients, our country was blowing people up half a world away. On the flight back, we had to adjust to the fact that we were returning to a campus and a nation where we'd be completely out of the loop. We had to adjust to the fact that when we left, Iraq was just another pesky player in the Axis of Evil, but when we returned, we were bombing the shit out of 'em, throttles wide open, all the way to Baghdad.

I remember two conversations in particular between coming home and Bush's speech from the USS Abraham Lincoln in which he declared an "end of major combat." One with a friend of mine who was initially opposed to the invasion, but who couldn't help cheering along with the Iraqis as the tore down big fucking statues of Saddam Hussein. In those moments, he could see the good we were doing, even though he disagreed with the means whereby which we were doing it. And another conversation in the RichLynn library, with another friend who asked me what I thought of it all. And I, choosing my words oh-so-carefully, trying to express how even though I thought our eagerness to invade before all other avenues were exhausted was hubris in the first degree, I couldn't help feeling that the Iraqi people were better off with Saddam out of the way, ready to start a new life and a new country with freedoms they had only dreamed of.

Four years later I'm driving to Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers in Rutland, Vermont when I see a crowd of 30 or 40 people lined up along the highway, protesting that very same war. And it's so confusing. And maddening. Not to mention disheartening. And infuriating. At this point, I don't think most people even understand what the hell is going on in Iraq. The first war we fought was over by the end of 2003. Then the Insurgency -- but since the 2005 elections, even that has become overshadowed by something more insidious. No longer do terrorists, foreign or domestic, account for the majority of violence in Iraq. A recent Pentagon report puts most of the bloodshed firmly in the hands of sectarian violence, that is to say, acts of violence between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority who held power under Saddam. And all that stands between these two groups and all out civil war, the scale of which could lead to genocide not seen since Rwanda, is the U.S. military.

The fact of the matter is, we're no longer fighting for democracy or liberty or oil or freedom from the terrorists. We're holding back a torrent of violence that certain Sunnis and certain Shiites wish to unleash upon each other, regardless of our presence or non-presence. That's not to say that all Iraqis are ready for civil war. Many just want to provide for their families and live in peace. But I'm sure there were plenty of people who felt like that in Virginia and Illinois and Kansas come 1861.

However, once that kind of war starts, it's impossible to avoid picking sides.

So that's that. I have no great love for our current president or his administration. I have no respect for men who lead our nation to war based on fudged data, half-truths and outright lies. But this so-called "surge" is really our last hope. If it doesn't work, expect this country (Democrat and Republican) to resign itself to its fate, and leave the Iraqis to their own devices. But do not, under any circumstances, expect peace to follow. Expect the violence to continue. Expect the death-toll to rise. And expect us to watch in shame and horror, followed by a number of years of second-guessing and misplaced guilt.

What kind of peace is that?

This war was no Vietnam. But expect the aftermath, should we withdraw now, to be just as devastating.

I don't like this war. I don't like how we were mislead in March of 2003. I don't like how it's been handled ever since. I don't like having my high school friends fight it while I hang out with elementary kids in Vermont. I don't like how a generation of our best and brightest are sacrificing their lives for aims that are about as clear as mud. But we're the bull. And we leveled the china shop. And if don't pick up the pieces, who the hell will?