An Andrew Sullivan reader commented that McCain was running against reality, but I think a lot of his constituents are prepared to vote against reality. Some of them are currently trying to redefine reality on Wikipedia.

I'm not going to link to any of this because it seems to be changing by the minute.

Wikipedia: Bush Doctrine

4 September 2008

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe a policy outlined in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002[1]

8 September 2008

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[5]

Added at the top 04:20 12 September 2008 but gone by 04:27

The Bush Doctrine is his world view, Charlie.

Added on 04:23, 12 September 2008

Current Events

In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, GOP Vice-Presidential pick Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska) was unable to define the Bush Doctrine for the nation, despite the fact that her son shipped out to Iraq on the same day of the interview, ostensibly one more serviceman deploying because of our government's adherence to the Bush Doctrine. Irony, thy name is Palin. See Interview Segments

Revised on 04:29, 12 September 2008

Current Events

In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, GOP Vice-Presidential pick Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska) was unable to define the Bush Doctrine for the nation, despite the fact that her son shipped out to Iraq on the same day of the interview. See Interview Segments

Governor Palin described the Bush Doctrine in the following manner: "I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation." This is one of the most succinct and accurate descriptions of the doctrine that has ever been stated.

261 revisions later, at 16:09, 13 September 2008

The Bush Doctrine is a journalistic term used to describe some foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Scholars identify seven different "Bush Doctrines," including the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; the doctrine of preemptive war; and the president's second-term "freedom agenda" as outlined in his second Inaugural Address.[1]

The first usage of the term may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense well before September 11th.[2][3]

Later the phrase came to describe the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[4] Later still, it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[5][6][7] This represented a continuation of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy of roll-back, as opposed to the older Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine; and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine. The "Bush Doctrine" was never enacted into law.

The main elements of one Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002.[8] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine,[9][10][11] and was updated in 2006.[12]

I'm assuming you saw that TPM is offering men's and women's T-Shirts featuring "McCain/Palin" written on the side of a pink pig with red lipstick. I think it's a bad move, and I'd never wear one.

It is a cute graphic, but not particularly damning. I question the wisdom of wearing anything that advertises the opposition. I could even see their supporters wearing the shirts as a badge of honor.

New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman was on "Meet the Press" yesterday, discussing the need for an "energy revolution." The appearance coincided with publication of his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution -- and How It Can Renew America. Said Friedman, "What we need today is an earth race with China, with Europe, with Japan, to see who can create the technologies to make the earth livable for man."

Watch the video:

Friedman's claims ("This is going to be the next great revolution," "incredible opportunities," etc.) put me in mind of Eric Janszen's article in Harper's. Claiming that America's economy is lurching ever more quickly from economic bubble to economic bubble, the founder of iTulip predicted a surge in alternative energy and infrastructure spending - sort of a green bubble.

Janszen defined the main economic drivers of "the cleantech bubble:" the need to recover from recession, weakness in the dollar, loss of petrodollar liquidity, loss of energy security and peak cheap oil. As a result, consumers will be faced with a bewildering array of fuels and vehicles: biofuels, electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, photovoltaics, wind turbines, ocean wave energy, geothermal energy, clean coal and even nukes.

Janszen saw these technologies becoming the hot, overvalued commodities of the new bubble. At the same time, he predicted corporations will plan and implement the new energy infrastructure to power expensive new vehicles and public transit.

Responding in the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas - USA , commentator Dave Cohen noted that venture capitalists (VC) were already looking to invest in what they called “the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century.”

We do need to explore alternative energies, but instead of assuming that technology, whether nuclear or alternative, will continue our energy-intensive lifestyles, we must also encourage conservation.

Conservative think-tanker David Frum worries that extremes of inequality will weaken the Republican grip:

The Vanishing Republican Voter (sub)

Measured by money income, Washington qualifies as one the most unequal cities in the United States. Yet these two very different halves of a single city do share at least one thing. They vote the same way: Democratic. And in this, we are not alone. As a general rule, the more unequal a place is, the more Democratic; the more equal, the more Republican. The gap between rich and poor in Washington is nearly twice as great as in strongly Republican Charlotte, N.C.; and more than twice as great as in Republican-leaning Phoenix, Fort Worth, Indianapolis and Anaheim.

Republicanism used to thrive in the exurbs, but:

Republican economic management since 2001 has not yielded many benefits for middle-income America. Adjusting for inflation, the incomes of college graduates actually dropped by 5 percent between 2000 and 2004 — and 44 percent of the people of Prince William are college graduates. Prince William is also ground zero for the middle-class revolt against the Bush administration’s easy immigration policies. An estimated 10 million migrants have entered the United States since 2000, at least half of them illegally, and few places in the United States have reacted more angrily than Prince William County. Last year, the Prince William Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to require the local police to check the immigration status of all arrested persons.

The money quote:

Republicans have been badly hurt in upper America by the collapse of their onetime reputation for integrity and competence.