The outcome of the Republican Party Presidential Candidate debates this past week in New Hampshire was shocking! This was especially because I took a lot of notes, watched the whole thing, and made an effort not to prejudge anything or anyone. I used to be an admirer of John McCain when he was the maverick Republican, facing up to and facing down George W. Bush and the party line on any number of issues. All of that went away, gradually the closer he got to the time of his second bid for the party's nomination for the presidency of the United States. His reaching across the aisle to partner with Feingold and Kennedy argued strongly for his independence and statesmanship, but most of that pales now in light of his pandering to the fundamentalists and "social conservatives" that the Republicans see as their so-called "base" of voters. There are, or have been historically, a core of dedicated electoral workers who devote themselves to candidates whose avowed positions match their own moral causes, and they can be a force to be reckoned with, especially in certain districts and regions. But both parties are essentially required to moderate any extremities of positions by the fact that in order to win elections, they must also appeal to the non-committed voters and the "independents." That does not seem to be Senator McCain's focus any more, though that is what gave him such a strong appeal in the past.

Senator McCain, along with all of the poll leading and major mainstream candidates seem pretty far afield from the majority of those independent American voters from what we saw in the Tuesday night debates. In spite of the amnesty inherent in the recent immigration bill, Senator McCain was eager to point to provisions that "require" the learning of English (while respecting the rights of Native Americans to their languages). His bad taste joke of a couple of weeks ago ("Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran." [to the rhythm if not the tune of the Beach Boys’ music]) left him off the list of those who needed to be asked if they would use tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, but Giuliani was also clear that he was, if not eager, at least completely willing to consider it. Actually it was Congressman Hunter from California who got the "bomb rolling" so to speak when he said: "REP. HUNTER: I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges." Governor Mitt Romney and Governor James Gilmore (ex-governor of Virginia) echoed Giuliani's "don't take any options off the table," position. But it also appears from the Friday vote in the US Senate that McCain's immigration bill is not going to survive in any case.

Another surprise of the debate was that Senator Joe Biden (Democrat - Delaware) got a major validation for his long standing plan to create a 3 state confederation from the factions of Iraq. McCain complained that such a plan would mean, "dividing bedrooms in Baghdad," (meaning Sunni's and Shiite's intermarried fairly freely before the fall of Saddam Hussein, and the rise of sectarian civil war), but Senator Sam Brownback announced during the debate that he would introduce a bill to propose just such a plan this week, which he, in fact, did do. Tommy Thompson also sounded a note of reason (compared to the "bomb Iran" crowd, at least) noting that there are already 18 provinces within Iraq, and that a confederation of those existing jurisdictions would be another sane and viable solution. Thompson, having been Secretary of Health and Human Services (or whatever the department was called at the time) has some national credentials, but Senator Sam Brownback was making a bold and fairly effective move to show that he had some savvy on the international stage of foreign policy as well. Definitely a point scored for Senator Brownback. However, I also score Senator Brownback a penalty for unfair play. In answer to the same question posed to the Democratic candidates about how they would deploy past (and present) presidents in their government should they be elected, Brownback was full of praise for the current president's father President George H.W. Bush and his work with the Tsunami Foundation, stating that such goodwill ambassador functions were appropriate, followed immediately by criticism that President Clinton (the OTHER founder of the Tsunami relief foundation, and goodwill ambassador) was incorrectly involving himself in matters where he didn't belong.

Other good points for various candidates included Governor Mitt Romney's statement that he would try to focus on moving the moderate forces within Iranian society more toward modernity. Specifically he said, “How do we help move the world of Islam so that the moderate Muslims can reject the extreme?” His answer was that with the Europeans, and other allies, we should "combine for an effort to help move Islam towards modernity." But Senator Brownback may have shot himself (and the possibility of success on that particular point) in the foot by mentioning the labor union movement in Iran as a potential ally in such a move. I think that MTV was about an equal of Ronald Reagan in the fall of the former Soviet Union, in that it brought the young citizens more into line with Western thinking and culture. I think we need to keep in mind that strategy for the future of the world in general. Entertainment and cultural exports are as important to achieving peace in our time as any calculated effort to influence politics. MTV alone won't overcome the educational hold the religious factions hold over young people, but they are a powerful force, and rock'n'roll or some equivalent could prove to be a tipping point in our favor.

I am going to point you to a .pdf [adobe format] document in a minute with results of a CNN poll taken on their web site the night of the debate, but in the meantime, I did want to mention that I thought one of the best "sound bytes" came from Tom Tancredo (in spite of his relatively extreme position that he will not use any language but ENGLISH in his campaign or printed materials) when he said that removing ourselves from Iraq should be viewed in the same light as Benjamin Franklin who was quoted upon leaving the Continental Congress in answer to the question, "What have you given us?" the response we should give to the Iraqi leaders, "A republic, if you can keep it."

I learned something that night too. Governor Gilmore had this to say:

"... the Kyoto Treaty was in fact fatally flawed. That was a treaty that in fact was going to basically just transfer money directly to Russia for nothing because they were going to get credits because simply that their economy had declined. The truth is, we’re going to have to get a program in place, an international diplomatic answer that is going to include every nation of the world in this entire project, and that includes China and India." I had not been aware that this was how America perceived the Kyoto accords. It is debatable as to whether Kyoto was really such a gift to Russia, given the size and population of the country and the relatively crude state of technology across that country as a whole, but that is also the same reason we need to carefully consider how China and India fit in the global warming responsibility matrix in any future agreements.

The state of American citizens' health care looked like it will be in serious jeopardy for a long time under most of the candidates proposals. Giuliani's best effort was to suggest a $15,000 deduction to allow a family of 4 to afford medican insurance from a private carrier. Right, Rudy. And what about the people who only make $25,000 or less per year? Do we just let them die off while we grant amnesty to another 12 million illegal immigrants to replace the low wage earners every 7 years? Since Tommy Thompson was formerly Secretary of Health, it was not unexpected that his emphasis on better health care was a major plank in his platform during this debate. What he had to say sounded better than most of the rest, especially taking a lot of the paperwork out of healthcare by computerizing it, including "e-prescriptions", and shifting the health care programs from treatment to more prevention, but that is a song we have been hearing for nearly 50 years now, and while the tune sounds the same the lyrics don't get any better. There is still a great lack of substance in these proposals.

All right, all right, I have been holding you in suspense for those "surprising" (if not shocking ?) results of the CNN Online viewers poll. The shock was that the majority of people responding to 5 of the 7 questions agreed with my assessment. I nearly fell out of my chair because I thought that the candidate who had advanced himself the most, who had the best grasp of the issues and answers, and "WON the debate" was ... Ron Paul. Let me run down the results here for you (and remember the link is to someone ELSE's screenshot of his actual votes on the survey). I just stumbled upon it (okay, I dug it up for the sake of being able to show you) in writing this column today.

Question	CNN Voters
Who do you think won the debate?	Ron Paul (53%)
Who seems to know the most about the issues?	Ron Paul (53%)
Who had the best one-liner or comeback?	Ron Paul (34%)
Who had the most disappointing performance at the debate?	Rudy Giuliani (27%)
Whose performance was the most surprising?	Ron Paul (48%)
Whose campaign got the biggest boost from the debate?	Ron Paul (48%)
Who was the snappiest dresser?	Mitt Romney (49%)

(One of the pundits against whose answers the public opinion voters were measured said that Wolf Blitzer was "best dressed.")

You can look for youself (I saved a copy on my web site just in case the original owner decided to take down his copy of the screenshot.) (Remember you need the [free]Adobe PDF reader to see this screenshot.) Now since CNN didn't make a big fuss about these results, I am guessing that the results shown in that screenshot were interim tallies, and that eventually Giuliani, Romney and McCain supporters got around to "voting" in the CNN poll to bring the results into line with Republican Party "policy", but the dominance of Ron Paul among the early voters is certainly an interesting phenomenon. There is not much doubt that 53% in two categories, 48% in another and "winner" in 5 of 7 poll questions for the "obscure" candidate is "dominance". Especially when his winningest categories were the "who won" and "who seemed to know the most about the issues," it could be that this "dark horse" will at least have some significant influence.

I can hope he will, since his position on the Iraq "war" are clearly in line with my own. During the debate Congressman Paul (R-Texas) said he thought we should get out now. Withdraw our troops, it was a case of "wrong diagnosis" and the only solution was to "change the treatment." This was in sharp contrast to Senator McCain's sabre rattling echo of the Bush administration's policy of inciting fear in the American people as he repeated the slogan, "They will follow us home." And as if it wasn't the American interference in Iraq that fomented the problem, it, "... will become a base for terrorism." Wake up, John, it IS a base for terrorists now more than it ever was when Saddam Hussein was in power. Al-Queda was never a significant force in Iraq until Hussein was removed.

Congressman Paul's other big "score" was in answer to an audience member's question about, "What is the most pressing moral issue facing this country today?" Congressman Paul answered that we have accepted pre-emptive war, as an instrument of foreign policy. He pointed out that not only have we spent $1,000,000,000,000 [one trillion dollars] on the Iraq war, but we also spent an equal amount every year in support of our military. Congressman Paul wants to cut military spending to put more emphasis on [domestic] health care and education.

I'd like to add to that I think we need to re-grow our outreach to less developed countries by VASTLY increasing spending for foreign aid, which in the conservative climate of the country these days is not a popular topic, but, in my opinion is one of the fastest ways to heal the wounds that have festered into hatred of the USA around the world. I have mentioned in recent columns both the microfinance efforts of Vinod Khosla (he is a director of the Grameen Foundation, Grameen is essentially the inventor of microfinance for the world's poorest people), and the Ryan's Well Foundation, bringing safe drinking water to hundreds of desperately poor villages. Of course, UN efforts through various organizations are important, too. UNESCO, and UNICEF are vitally important to people you have never heard of, and who have never heard of you, either. But we as a country, as a people, need to be doing more for the less fortunate. We not only need to speak up against the genocide in Darfur, we need to force our politicians to take meaningful action, not just lipservice while trying not to disrupt Sudan, yet another oil producing region of the world. But we also need to be bringing to those destitute populations the means and opportunity to create enterprises for themselves. You cannot have a permanent settlement without water and sanitation. Even more than shelter (at least in tropical regions) you must start with water and sanitation. We can help, temporarily with food and health care supplements, but in order for those people to survive they also need to be able to generate income, and for that, microfinance is an incredible tool for breaking the cycle of poverty and starvation.

The tiny scale of microfinance may not readily "computer" to people in the industrialized countries of the world, but a (breeding) pair of goats can not only help sustain a family, but can expand into a herd that supports generation after generation of that family and all their descendants. Allowing a family to borrow enough money to buy a pair of goats turns them into entrepreneurs (not without help and guidance from others in their community, and usually from the lending institution as well). The same is true for a single cellular telephone in a village. The cell phone account holder becomes, in effect, the local telephone company. If the village holds, say, 50 people, it might never grow the telephone company to have a second cell phone, but the farmer who can negotiate a better price for his crop in the nearby city for the cost of a couple of $0.35 phone calls, can free himself from virtual enslavement to the only local buyer, creating greater prosperity for himself, and thereby, for his neighbors too. The daughter of the goat owner might also become a "knitting factory", blending homespun wool (angora wool comes from goats, not sheep, remember) with a skein or two of commercial wool into fashions and patterns from (used?) knitting and fashion magazines. One small town grew a vegetable marketing cooperative to include a potato chip factory that sells most of its product to a major urban center in India, as another example of microfinance success and growth of greater prosperity.

The remarkable thing about microfinance is that loan defaults are far lower than with conventional lenders. These poor people with nothing for collateral except their pride and community encouragement have a greater than 95% repayment rate. The social impact, of course, is even far greater. This is NOT charity. This is businesses lending money to help create other businesses. Occasionally the businesses fail, but because microfinance is usually built around matriarchal groups, women supporting their families, and working together supporting each other. This local support system is highly successful in ensuring that the loans are repaid, but also that the businesses financed are more likely to be a success because of the community support from potential customers. A sewing machine or a cow can be a business on this scale, one that saves a family.

Okay I thought I was done with the politics today, but as I tried to transition to a discussion of alternative fuels, green fuels, non-ester renewable diesel and the roles these play in both our current society and as a potential economic instrument for change in the underdeveloped world, I keep coming back to another comment from Congressman Ron Paul the other night. I don't know that I can summarize it and do it justice, so please pardon the long quote:

"...you can’t discuss energy without discussing our foreign policy. Why — why do we go to the Middle East? You know that oil is very important about the Middle East and why we’re there. Why did we, our government, help overthrow Mossadeq in 1953? It had to do with oil. So our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. The profits — that’s not the problem. It’s the problem that we succumb to the temptation to protect oil interests by literally going out and fighting wars over oil."

[Can you seen why, with actual substance like that in his short responses during the debate, some people saw him as most knowledgeable?]

[NOTE: Mossadeq for those who are not fans of history, or old enough to remember the name from current events news, was the Premier of Iran at that time. Interestingly, it was discovered later that Major General H. Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. (father to General "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf, Jr. of Desert Storm/Iraq War 1) was sent by the Central Intelligence Agency as part of Operation Ajax to convince the exiled Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to return and seize power. Schwarzkopf went so far as to organize the security forces he had trained to support the Shah.]

Trying to bolster a position that nuclear power is "safe" and "green" Senator McCain claimed that "Nuclear power is used on Navy ships which have sailed around the world for 60 years without an accident." This, of course, is patently nonsense, and for a person whose reputation is as a "military man," an Annapolis graduate, and Navy veteran, should certainly know that two American nuclear submarines (the Thresher and the Scorpion) have been lost, as well as three Soviet nuclear powered submarines. We know for certain that the Russian submarine Kursk was lost (pardon me, not lost, sunk, we know where it is) due to a malfunction in the reactor that caused a fire. I'd call that an accident, wouldn't you? Would you call McCain's claim an outright lie? It appeared to me that all the candidates who expressed an opinion seemed to think that nuclear energy was a "solution" to global warming and energy independence. Or at least that is what they claimed. I am suspicious that it is in their financial interest to support the "all coal, clean coal and opportunities for natural gas and nuclear power," as Governor Gilmore said, since those industries are such big money contributors to political campaigns in general and Republican coffers in particular.

I am almost ready to suggest a Political Action Committee (PAC) except that the entire alternative energy industry doesn't amount to gross revenues equal to just the net profit of one of the major petroleum companies. How much clout can you wield it that is the scale of the entrenched interests? Perhaps we should take a page from the religious leaders who indoctrinate children from a young age, and have THE CHILDREN form the PAC's. Children have been an effective force in the anti-smoking movement. If we taught children about the importance of alternative, environmentally-friendly energy sources, including all the choices of biodiesel, ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, non-ester renewable diesel, biobutanol and more, AND taught them about the political clout they could have by organizing PAC's of millions of students at say just two dollars a month membership fees, it could become a force to be reckoned with in not just American, but even global politics. Combine that with the internet, and ... well, I am tempted to say something about the prophet and the mountain here, but I don't want any Islamist extremists coming after me, thank you.

Love

Stafford "Doc" Williamson