I just finished reading Tom Oliphant's book, "Utter Incompetents", a chronicle of the entire first 7 years of the Bush administration.  Oliphant believes that Bush was a very good governor of Texas, but gives no information to support that belief, and he believes that Bush really wanted to do what was best for the country as president, again with no information to support the belief.

These beliefs are behind the title of the book - Oliphant's conclusion is that Bush and his cohorts were simply utterly incompetent at their jobs.  The book takes all of the major events of the past 7 years and points out the gross incompetence that got us where we are today.

Dick Cheney comes in for almost as much criticism as Bush, and is acknowledged to be the real power behind Bush's presidency.

What is missing in the book is any consideration of my theory, that Bush was pushed forward for the office with malice aforethought, by the money men behind the Republican party.  Cheney was there to keep Bush in line.  And, the primary, defining objective of that administration was to transfer as much wealth as is humanly possible to the money men behind the party.  I can understand everything done by Bush and his administration if that theory is correct.

The book is very readable - I read it cover to cover in three sittings, never once bored or distracted.  Many of the horrendous acts of the administration tend to get lost to my memory, replaced by the horror of the Iraq invasion.  After reading this book I have no doubt that GWBush has been and continues to be the worst president our country has ever been cursed to have.  January can't get here too soon.

This has been a historic week for the Bill of Rights.  First the 4th amendment was eviscerated by Congress.  Then the 2nd amendment was misinterpreted by the US Supreme Court.  All that is left is for the remaining branch of the government to mangle another of those ten amendments.  Never fear, we have two more days left in the week.

The 4th amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."  It would be difficult, even today, to express this any more clearly.  A search warrant is needed before the government can perform a search of anyone's property, including their electronic communications, and that search warrant must describe what is to be searched and what will be taken.

The FISA law has always been at least somewhat out of the bounds of what the 4th amendment permits, by allowing the searches to take place before the warrant is obtained.  This week's events have still further weakened our protection from illegal searches.  This is one of the amendments that has protected us from despotic governments.

The 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed."  This amendment is considerably less clear, but it clearly does give the states the ability to maintain a state militia, made up of citizens who keep the guns they need for their militia duties at home.  Nothing in that amendment is about hunting or self protection.

But, the Supreme Court is now dominated by "conservatives" who are convinced that every person's safety is dependent on them being armed to the teeth.  So, this week's ruling turns the 2nd amendment on its head, and converts it to a hunting and individual self protection amendment.

Since it is the 4th amendment that is so crucial to protecting us from a despotic government, one would expect there would be a nationwide outcry against the FISA modifications which will be passed this week.  And, since a very small percentage of us need guns for either hunting or for self protection, one would expect that there would be at least a shrug of the shoulders at obtaining the right to keep a gun in our homes.   But, one's expectations would be completely in error.

Senator Obama is running on a promise to change the way we do business in Washington.  He has lectured us about the need for more civility in public life, and about the need for more responsible parenting.  So, of course he would oppose the FISA modifications and be upset about the Supreme Court ruling.    But, again common sense loses - Obama favors both of those actions.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed, waiting to see which of the first ten amendments the executive branch of our government will demolish in the last two days of the week.  To avoid being wrong again I won't predict which it will be.

This is a good time to start thinking about how the 2012 Democratic Presidential Primary cycle should work.  We certainly should know that this year's cycle is not the best way to do it.  So, I decided to give it a shot myself.

First:  my complaints about this year's cycle.
Iowa and New Hampshire going first -why?
A 6 month cycle - why?
A mix of rules for caucuses and primaries instead of standardized rules.
Too long a "recess" between some elections.
No reason to allow individual states to schedule their own primaries.

My system will be a three month cycle, starting in March 2012 and ending with May 2012.  This means 50 primaries or caucuses in 13 weeks of Tuesdays.  To simplify this, assume all of the primaries will be on Tuesday.  I would break down the schedule to 48 weeks of 4 primaries per week, and one week with 2 primaries. And, no weeks off until they are all done.

There is no logical reason to hold the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary before any other state gets a chance at it.  But, I doubt that there would be support for changing this, so I would hold both of those events on the first Tuesday.

Each of the remaining Tuesdays would have a primary or caucus from four different areas of the country, with four different state delegation sizes.  For example, the second Tuesday could be New York, N. Dakota, Alabama and New Mexico.  The next week might have Texas, Vermont,  Missouri and Oregon.  And, on by fours to the end. 

This should greatly limit the pandering that now goes on when a candidate spends a whole month in one state promising the moon to try to win that state.  It keeps the voters interest involved throughout, or until someone has a majority of the delegates.  And, it eliminates the mad scramble of states to be among the first primaries.  Of course the schedule would change each election cycle.

Is there a better way to schedule the Primaries?  And, what about caucuses - should they even be allowed, and under what rules?

What does it take for Senator Clinton to win the majority of the elected delegates to the Democratic Convention?  <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008”  Wikipedia </a> has a good tabulation of delegates selected so far in the primary process.  To date, the total elected delegates are:  Clinton - 1219, Obama - 1362, with 67 either unallocated or allocated to candidates no longer in the race.  So, Obama has a 143 delegate lead in elected delegates, as of now.

There are still 538 delegates to be elected in the Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, etc. elections/caucuses.  (Florida and Michigan not included in the totals.)  Delegates are awarded roughly proportional to the votes each candidate gets.

In order for Senator Clinton to gain 144 delegates on Obama, thus leading in elected delegates, she needs to win the remaining elections/caucuses by an average of 57% to 43%, and that assumes all 67 of the unallocated delegates go to Clinton.  If those are split 50-50, Clinton needs to win by about 63% to 37%.  This is certainly possible.

It is also possible for a comet to strike the Earth next year.

If Obama makes a mistake comparable to endorsing McCain for President, Clinton stands a good chance.  But, Senator Clinton has preempted him in doing that, so even that might not be enough.

If Florida and Michigan are able to get their ducks in a row and select delegates in a manner that complies with the party rules they agreed to, this analysis is slightly different, but unless Clinton wins a huge percentage of the delegates in both states the results are about the same.

We continue to see otherwise intelligent Democrats talking about the “Commander in Chief” job as if it were the most important part of being President.  It isn’t.  There is a single phrase in the Constitution which uses that term, and it does so only to indicate that the military is subordinate to the civilian government.  There is no actual “Commander in Chief” job to be done.

The President doesn’t lead troops into battle, he doesn’t formulate military strategy, he doesn’t participate in military activity planning.  The most he does, as Commander in Chief, is approve overall goals and strategies, as presented to him by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  

The single qualification for handling this minor role is good judgement.  The President needs to be able to judge the  motives of his staff in making recommendations to him.  He needs to be able to judge the motives of Congress when a military budget is approved.  He needs to be able to judge the motives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in making their recommendations.  Judgement is the quality that a President needs most for all of his responsibilities, but especially for his responsibility for approving military activity.

Harry Truman could be seen as the archetype of a “Commander in Chief”, given his control over General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War. MacArthur wanted to make his own decisions about how to conduct that war, what the objectives were, and how to achieve those objectives.  When Truman saw that MacArthur was motivated primarily by delusions of grandeur, he simply replaced him.  He didn’t argue with him.  He didn’t go along with him.  He acted as MacArthur’s superior and replaced him, even though MacArthur was seen by the majority of Americans at that time as a hero, always right.

Of all the surviving candidates for President today, two of them can be immediately dismissed as failing the judgement test.  Both of those people were unable to correctly judge the motives of President Bush and his administration in driving the nation to an unnecessary war.  A very large percentage of Americans, and most of the world’s citizens correctly made that judgement.  But, Clinton and McCain didn’t.

When President Bush asked for permission to attack Iran, by designating part of the Iranian military as a terrorist organization, those same two were unable to correctly judge Bush’s motives.  But, a very large percentage, probably over 50%, of Americans readily understood those motives.  Hardly a recommendation for either of them to become “Commander in Chief”.

By default that leaves us with only one Presidential candidate qualified to become the new “Commander in Chief”.  Even here, the other two candidates demonstrate their lack of good judgement by failing to acknowledge this simple fact.

Consider that Senator Clinton virtually endorsed Senator McCain as our new “Commander in Chief” today.  Given that she has claimed to be seeking that job herself she once again demonstrated the abysmal judgement that disqualifies her for that job.