In the Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente writes of her regret at having supported the Iraq War as a liberal interventionist. She now claims she was “deluded” to think there was a sound humanitarian justification for the invasion in 2003. What has prompted this apologia? Details in the Iraq files just released by Wikileaks:
The abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison were mild compared with the atrocities inflicted by Iraqis on each other. The Shia-controlled Interior Ministry ran secret jails in which inmates, most of them Sunnis, endured the same kinds of torture as those inflicted by Saddam. They were burned with boiling water, had their fingers amputated, and had electroshock applied to their genitals. When U.S. forces discovered the brutalities, they simply filled out incident reports and forwarded them to the local authorities.
No human is immune to hearing about that kind of brutality. Which is why a little context actually strengthens the liberal-interventionist position. The math is simple, if disturbing: According to estimates from human rights organizations, from 1979 to 2003, Saddam Hussein probably killed 800,000 to 1 million people, many through methods similar to the ones detailed above. This puts his annual average in the neighborhood of 45,000 murders. At that rate, if he were left in power, he would have killed 360,000 since 2003. As of today, the website Iraqbodycount.org puts the total number of civilian deaths caused by the Iraq War between 98,585 and 107,594. In what universe is 100,000 dead worse than 360,000?
Moreover, consider how the annual Iraqi body count will likely continue to plummet in the coming years. Add to that, the prospect—shaky though it may be—of a functioning Iraqi democracy. Under Saddam, it would have been 360,000 dead with no chance of ebbing the slaughter and no hope for freedom.
There is no humanitarian justification for regretting Saddam’s ouster, even accounting for the coalition’s mistakes. There are other less quantifiably false arguments against the war. One might make the case that it cost too much to prosecute or turned world opinion against the U.S., for example. But hand-wringing over the net carnage just doesn’t compute. The facts are too easily obtained for Margaret Wente not to understand this. If she regrets her support for the war it can only mean she’s decided that the humanitarian component is not as important as she had once believed.
David Gergen announced that “there’s not a radical bone in his [Obama's] body” a few weeks ago. The Beltway establishment’s confidence is touching, I suppose, but I suspect misplaced.
All Obama’s inclinations and influences seem to be leftist. He does have a sense of political calculation, however; so, if he wins, that gives non-leftists their only hope.
Colin Powell is either a fool or a liar. There is no middle ground here. There are no center-right people whatsoever arguing that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim terrorists. Not even one! Moreover, the few crazies who often say such stupid stuff may not even vote for John McCain! He is deemed insufficiently right-wing.
Pedant von knowitall: and how on earth does David Gergen know? Not that he has lived with the guy for oone day before 2005. Obama’s problematic relationships and associations are from his life before he came to the US Senate in 2005 and noone in the pundocraty can assure anyone anything about that.
They might not care but they have no idea.
Has the McCain camp reacted in any way the enorsement? I hope they IGNORE it with a “No comment”.
If Powell thought Obama was so great, he should have endorsed him at the Democratic convention, like Lieberman endorsed McCain at the GOP convention. But Powell could not be certain then that Obama would win and, as we know, he’s never liked to take personal risks.
From Obama’s standpoint, this endorsement was well-calculated to give him a news cycle boost, at the least. Powell doesn’t have the standing he had eight years ago, however.
One irony: Powell had a great falling out with Clinton over gays in the military and helped craft “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Guess who will junk that? Obama! No biggie for me, but this was a big deal to Colin once upon a time, supposedly.
> And does Powell really think the Democrats are less polarizing?
I’d say yes, definitively — at least if the metric is so-called “true” patriotism. Sarah Palin & co. constantly imply only rural Americans are ‘real patriots’, have ‘real American values’, work hard etc.. In comparison, how many times did John Kerry mock gun owners, hunters or other Red State stereotypes four years ago? None as far as I can recall.
Seems Blue State politicians are constantly bending over backwards to accomodate Red Staters, whereas the George Bushes and Sarah Palins are just proud of being ignorant…
> And if I start in on the anti-Semitism expressed by Democrats,
> you’ll still be reading this when you should be out voting.
“What’s the matter with Jews??”
Sounds like Abe is making a Thomas Frank type of argument here….
MARCU$
“David Gergen announced that “there’s not a radical bone in his [Obama’s] body”
David Gergen is only half right. I find no evidence indicating that Barack Obama embraces the violent leftism of Bill Ayers. There is, though, overwhelming evidence that he is far left of center. If nothing else—we merely need to look at his voting record in the U.S. Senate. Alas, the well known Gergen says a lot of dumb things that can easily be discredited. He has grown more intellectual lazy over the years because of his pampered Harvard University existence. We should treat all Ivy League soft science graduates as idiots until proven otherwise. Gergen is simply another one of the bunch.
Powell’s just parroting the Beltway establishment, it’s his main goal in life.
Be that as it may, expect a Kathleen Parker column any day now on how Powell found it necessary to endorse Obama because the GOP has abandoned conservative principles. That’s why Powell wants Obama making Supreme Court appointments instead of McCain, of course.
>>Rod Says: Has the McCain camp reacted in any way the enorsement? I hope they IGNORE it with a “No comment”.
McCain spoke to it briefly on FNC noting it was not unexpected (like Andrea Mitchell, close friend of Powell’s wife) has been pimping this appearance for weeks.
I suspect the inherent institutionalism of the government will pull Obama closer to the center. By that I mean bureacracies are very slow to change in either direction. And although one can make a case that most of the bureacracies are center/left, they still would be resistent to being pushed further left. I would guess this would also be the case because some beauracracies are center/right: Justice, Defense, Commerce would come to mind. In other words, people who run things on a permanent basis just don’t like to change. I would also guess that, after eight years of a Republican administration, a great deal of the permanent beaucracy has added Republican types.
If Obama and the Democrats go after the “rich,” personally, I’m not terribly concerned. I am concerned that their tax gestures will be too sweeping, hurting those marginally productive people or those who benefit most from a growing economy. And here’s the whole irony of liberals and their concern for the lower groups. Let’s fact it, smart, naturally productive people will succeed under European style capitalism. But as we see in Europe today, particulalry with its immigrant groups, marginal people need an expanding, dynamic system in order to become upwardly mobile. That’s been the strength of our system, and their weakness, as unemployment figures attest to. I would look for the underclass to either expand or remain stagnant. But, smart, productive liberals themselves are too tied into the prosperity of a market economy and will tread lightly in moving to destroy it, thus nibbling only on the edges. They value their wine and cheese “Clubs of the Month” too much, along with their Volvos, day care nannies, and ten room houses in the suburbs.
A much greater fear of an Obama administration with a substantial Democratic majority in Congress is foreign policy. One slip or miscalculation in the direction of their left wing world view will be disasterous, and given what these people say and believe, enough to be of great concern.
Just a few thoughts I’ve had thinking about the next four years.
Mr Greenwald gave a series of examples of top Democrats directly attacking Republicans and each other, or openly casting doubt on an opponent’s authenticity, honesty, and integrity. He also gave examples of very thinly veiled Muslim/Arab-bashing indulged in by leading Democrats, including Sen Obama, thoughtfully opposed by Sen McCain.
In response, McCain-Palin opponents, like their Bush-deranged predecessors, come up with generalized calumnies whose only real basis is presumptuous sensitivity. Saying that rural Americans exhibit exemplary qualities would be interpreted as a slight only by those who imagine a discourse scrubbed to the blood of all conceivable value judgments – other than those, perhaps, approved by cosmopolitan enforcers of esteem-supportive speech codes (from which they, as we have seen, typically presume themselves exempted).
One exemplary American value that you will find more prevalent outside our liberal-dominated urban centers is an instinctive, assertive rejection of such dreadful insanity and all that it implies.
Sorry, talking about an Obama administration caused a few neurons to misfire. I know, it should be bureaucracy.
I agree that domestic policy is the most danger from Obama but look at Carter for a preview of Obama. Carter allowed Iran to slide away and become an enemy. He allowed Congress to debase the currency and we have never recovered. He told us to “get over our irrational fear of communism” and the USSR invaded Afghanistan. All the serious problems we deal with today and for the next decades had their origin in the Carter administration. Obama will set the agenda for the rest of the century and it will involve cleaning up his messes. The second law of thermodynamics says that order is not the natural state and it takes only a momentary lapse to turn it to disorder.
Quite understandable, Paul. Compared to your usual contribution, your post was downright sunny. I therefore hesitate to say, but feel I must, that your expectations of a thoughtful centrism from Obama-Pelosi-Reid resemble the traditional hopes grasped by defenseless citizens just prior to the sack. Because such thoughts are comforting, they should probably be treated with a high degree of suspicion, especially by anyone who still has any fight left in him.
More likely, Gen. Powell is simply a patriot who understands how disastrous the policies of the Commentariat have been to America.
NYT:
“Mr. Powell, who is of the pragmatist camp and has been critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war, was said by friends in recent months to be disturbed by some of the neoconservatives who have surrounded Mr. McCain as foreign-policy advisers in his presidential campaign.”
“It was Charles Schumer who said in 2006 that letting an Arab company manage a handful of U.S. ports was “a homeland security accident waiting to happen.”
I personally defended the Dubai group that wished to manage our ports. It was totally ridiculous to exclude their proven management skills. And yes, there were aspects of racism employed by the Democrats to accomplish their aims. Charles Schumer wasn’t worried about national security. He simply desired to help his union supporters.
#2, David Thomson: “There are no center-right people whatsoever arguing that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim terrorists.”
Of course. On the other hand, Powell’s words “and might
be associated with terrorists” are ambiguous, intentionally or not.
Obama has been associated with
terrorists, Ayers and Dohrn; this is a matter of fact.
As for the rumor of Obama being a secret Muslim, the most
Powell can say is what Hillary Clinton once said: that
it was based on nothing as far as she knew. Obama found
this insufficient, as well as similar words by Lieberman – but
he was wrong. If he were a secret Muslim, that would be
his secret. My guess is that he is not –
but that’s a guess.
However, his assertion that he has always been a Christian is
probably inaccurate: as a Muslim’s son attending a madrassah in Indonesia,
he was probably a Muslim at least then. As an adult, he is not responsible
for what he was as a child – but he is responsible for the truth or falsehood
of his adult words.
Would it be unfair to appeal to voters’ doubts on such issues as this?
I do not think so. It is fair as long as one sticks to
the truth – e. g., by repeating his middle name.
His middle name was not his choice at the beginning -
but it became his choice when he did not
change it after 9/11.
Instead, he chose – in that period after 9/11 – to stop
wearing a pin with an American flag:
a different gesture sending a different message.
I loved this anecdote from the Powell endorsement:
“It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.”
You can’t say it loudly or frequently enough: America is a land of hope and welcome for people of all religions. A Muslim American is every bit as patriotic and worthy of high office as a Christian American or a Jewish American.
The second-generation neocon John Podflotz was right: Powell’s endorsement dominates the news cycle, together Palin making an fool of herself on SNL. The “socialism” desperation** is drowning, like a 72 year old trying to swim from Tonkin to Honolulu while dragging draft dodger Bush on his back.
**Anyone else seen the hilarious Sununu ad where he accuses Shaheen of supporting Bush? Last night in Nashua watching the Sox the entire bar burst into laughter at that one.
This is a very good time for robust Conservatives to rethink their options. Not a Ron Paul option but an option from the ground up. Who’s in a hurry?
The 3rd Party candidates out there now don’t seem to have a clue about how to be military ready even for the defense of one’s own Country. Their rhetoric leaves a lot to be desired and they seem to have a tendency to make themselves radioactive with very little effort. They’re not expansive thinkers at all. Building a solid movement, with formidable intellectual prowess may seem impossible but I’m willing to give it a try. It’s about time we demand something extra from our leaders. If we don’t, Conservatism is dead. Part of the reason Rome went under is because its best people retreated to their libraries and books and intimacies.
President Bush was either incapable or unwilling to really involve us in this effort to beat back Islam. He thought a game of peek-a-boo with the electorate would suffice. Imagine how his father, an actual warrior, must have wanted to wretch when he pulled that “Mission Accomplished” idiocy. Imagine?
For the goals of the upcoming Osama administration to succeed or begin to get some traction, gasoline needs to remain at close to $4/gallon. If Obama is seriously Green -and I understand that Powell is hooked up with Green investors- then a permanent re-ordering of American lifestyle has to come about.
I’m not sure that’s altogether a problem for Conservatives who hope for some semblance of a return to a local economy, moving away in however small measure from a life necessarily linked to industrialization and sprawl.
The danger in an Obama presidency is the Judiciary and what appears to be despotic tendencies on his part to limit free speech. If Powell is the deep throat that some think he is he will not be an advocate in defense of it.
The Democrats as evidenced by Pelosi’s belligerence in her address to the Republicans prior to the first vote on the bailout plainly show that she and her own mean to crush Conservatism. It’s not just about winning.
It’s my understanding that Obama wants to take 10,000,000 people off of the tax rolls now, keep them from getting back on the tax rolls, and giving them $1,000 every April 15. That will increase and petrify the underclass without a doubt.
The danger of Obama is that he’ll codify the anile and force his opponents to choose their words very carefully in any critique concerning him, his policies and the people he appoints to positions of power.
Colin Powell is above all else a careerist. He was a political, not a combat, general. Nothing is more important to him than being part of the Establishment, and the Establishment in this country today is Democratic (the academy, the media, the bureaucracy). If he backed McCain he might not get invited to the right cocktail parties in Georgetown and the Times might not like him anymore. Does anyone believe Powell would do this if he thought McCain would win? He could be guessing wrong, though.
“It’s my understanding that Obama wants to take 10,000,000 people off of the tax rolls now, keep them from getting back on the tax rolls, and giving them $1,000 every April 15. That will increase and petrify the underclass without a doubt.” — Mary
Your understanding is retarded, Mary. He wants no such thing.
“Does anyone believe Powell would do this if he thought McCain would win? He could be guessing wrong, though.”
The odds are on the side of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Barack Obama’s campaign lived by the race card—and now it will be destroyed by the race card. Joe Biden, for instance, has once again opened his mouth and described those with doubts about voting for the Democratic Party ticket as white racists. Obama is no longer perceived as “above race” by an increasing number of white voters. He is therefore doomed on Election Day.
Your understanding is retarded, Mary. He wants no such thing.
The one thing I’m wrong about, no doubt, is that he wants to keep them from getting back on the tax rolls. That was misstated. He has no control over someone progressing and to assume that of him is also wrong.
Don’t know if I made it clear but what I meant to say is that it was wrong of me to assume keeping them off would be something premeditated and/or part of his motivation.
CK, I didn’t mean to suggest that Obama et.al won’t try to move left. I’m saying there is a great deal of built-in opposition from the very nature of institutions–both private and public–to major ideological moves. You may be right: I’m whistling pass the graveyard, but I find it hard to believe that the very successful–and many of Obama’s supporters are–will stand by and watch their “riches” dissolve before their eyes, let alone a government bureaucrat accepting a major overhaul of his department. Again, I don’t like it, but we can live with a social democracy. We can’t SURVIVE with an administration that makes mistakes in defense/foreign policy.
Yes, I stand accused. The political situation is hopeless. I know that rankles you, and I sincerely respect that, but I consider myself a realist. By the way, if you knew me personally, you would know that I’m a fighter. Indeed a piranha.
“The political situation is hopeless.”
Really? A few more recent polls provide a bit of optimism:
“ZOGBY: Obama 47.8%, McCain 45.1%…
RED FLAG: Obama’s lead slips to 3 points?”
The problem is coupling Obama with a 20 to 30 Dem house seat pickup and 8 to 11 seats in the senate.
Dems currently are leading in NH, VA, NC, MN, CO, NM, AK and OR. That’s eight seats gone, unless some polling shifts occur. The GOP also has very shaky leads in MS and GA and possibly KY as well. Even if the GOP loses “just” eight seats, that takes them down to 41 (42 if Lieberman caucuses with them). Maintianing a filibuster will depend on Specter, Snowe (assuming she doesn’t switch parties) and Collins. Expect the Dems to press the GOP hard here.
Thus the only real restraint on the leftists in the Democratic party (which includes Obama and Pelosi) will have to come from “moderate” Democrats. The latter will promptly be targeted by the same Kossites who come here to attack us now.
Mr. Powell, who is of the pragmatist camp
And he is endorsing a man who say he wants to “repair the world” and “save the world” and “knock down the barriers of the world” and make the “waters of the world recede”.
That’s not exactly someone who understands the limits of American power.
Mere words?
DT, the problem is that Obama’s lead in the Rasmussen has increased 2 over the weekend, from 4 to 6. The Gallup had been narrowing, but today it expanded again, to 3 (traditional track) and 7 (expanded track). Averaging the tracks yields something like a four to five point Obama lead. Absent a significant Bradley Effect that cancels Obama’s ground game/vote fraud, Obama should win. McCain might have a shot if he’s only averaging 2-3 point behind, it seems to me, but even there we would need a Bradley Effect. And the polls may have stopped tightening, we’ll have to see next week.
I have no problem with General Powell supporting Barack Obama (he is entitled to support whomever he wishes), but claiming Republicans are suggesting Barack Obama is Muslim is flatly, completely, and unequivically incorrect and a lie from General Powell.
The GOP is NOT doing that. The McCain campaign is NOT doing that. A few fringe individuals and pundits are doing that, but I have NOT heard that from Hannity, Rush, National Review, The Weekly Standard, or other major conservative figures.
This is how Dick Morris put it – PvK and other members of our conservative fellowship of the not quite yet dead (cf. Kierkegaard’s essay on Paul Zisserson). I refer to Morris merely to credit him, not because I think his name alone gives any special weight to his analysis (I say this in anticipation of pointless toe-sucker ad hominems):
I would add that two weeks and two days are, at minimum, if not a lifetime, then an undergraduate, graduate, and post-doc in politics. Late news events or revelations have threatened in all of our close elections either to overturn the race or to nudge if far out of its settled equilibrium. Admittedly, these have mainly been hit-jobs or surprise attacks against Republicans – the Walsh indictment of Cap Weinberger is the one that Morris likes to recall – but, whether or not turnabout is fair play, it’s more than a mere possibility. Something along these lines is a likelihood. There’s no way to be sure which way it will go.
CK, my academic interests have been too practical. You’ll have to enlighten me about Kierkegaard. I think I have read that he is considered an existential theist, but your reference needs explanation. By the way, as you would suspect I would say, Dick Morris has been wrong on almost everything political this past month: from McCain’s suspension of his campaign to return to Washington, to arguing that the public would view his debates as victories. The only opinion he has been correct on was when at the beginning of August he argued that campaigns are won during that month; a month McCain squandered with his silly commercials about celebrity rather than defining Obama in terms of Wright, Ayers and Acorn.
Paul, if I could find an on-line version of EITHER/OR, I would link you to the essay “The Unhappiest Man” – one of my favorite essays – written as an address to the Fellowship of the Dead. At various stages of my life, I’ve found it highly applicable to many existential situations. A few months ago I was thinking about it a lot in relation to Obama (from memory): “He has no future, because his future has already passed. He has no past, because his past has not yet arrived.” As for Morris, if he’s been wrong about everything, that means he’s just about due to get one right! Since however he’s not really making a prediction one way or the other, there’s no comfort to be taken whether you’re betting with or against the streak.
I’ve been studying Kierkegaard and Karl Barth for this past year. Barth has had an enormous influence on me. But Kierkegaard is no less made for the present age than he was for his own.
This is mainly for Paul, as in introduction to Søren. It’s part of my Essential Kierkegaard, specifically from his piece, Two Ages, A Literary Review.
Found it online here:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MODERN/PRESENT.HTM
Oh boy, they be talking Kiekergaard instead of Mooseburgers, must be over, u betcha!
Reasons for hope:
“Sunday, October 19, 2008
Obama By Five [Byron York]
Obama’s lead in the RealClearPolitics average of polls has dropped to five points — a fairly significant fall caused when some older polls that showed big Obama margins (a Los Angeles Times polls giving Obama a nine-point lead and a CBS poll giving him a 14-point lead) were phased out of the constantly-updated average. In the current average, the biggest Obama lead in any poll is seven points, and the smallest is three points.”
“Oh boy, they be talking Kiekergaard instead of Mooseburgers, must be over, u betcha!”
Soren Kiekergaard loved eating Mooseburgers. They helped him think about our place in the universe. We know that God exists because He gave us the mooseburger. I spoke to Soren only yesterday—and he told me that he endorses John McCain and Sarah Palin.
CK and Mary, thanks for the recomendations. When I’m discouraged with the world, I go back and read some of the great Russian novelists. I just started to reread “Crime and Punishment.” When I finish, I’ll try the essays and pieces you note.
When I’m discouraged with the world, I go back and read some of the great Russian novelists
Yeah, nothing picks one up like reading Chekhov.
Whew.
“Yeah, nothing picks one up like reading Chekhov.”
That Fyodor Dostoevsky dude was also something else. His humorous book, Crime and Punishment, showed me human nature at its best. Yup, a laugh a minute. It’s almost as funny as imagining Barack Obama in the White House. I think I’ll also see Saw 5 next weekend.
Thank you, Mary. Kierkegaard is so painfully hilarious – but especially for pessimistic youths and their optimistic elders. I must say though that in Kierkegaard mode I don’t feel anywhere near in robust enough spiritual health to help renovate conservatism. He’s more a philosopher of crawling back under the covers and hoping the day passes quickly.
MARKOS says, “And does Powell really think the Democrats are less polarizing? I’d say yes, definitively — at least if the metric is so-called “true” patriotism.What color is the sky in your world, Markos? The statement posed nothing about patriotism, “true” or otherwise. (Nice Obama-esque dodge though, brother.) The undeniable truth is that the left is soaked in vitriole. Sandra Burnhardt being just the most recent – and unexceptional – case in point.Seems Blue State politicians are constantly bending over backwards to accomodate Red Staters[BS detector screaming in the background] Give ONE example. Sure, Dem pols will gladly make pandering remarks to fly-over country; and then bad mouth them when they go home. THAT is reality.
He’s more a philosopher of crawling back under the covers and hoping the day passes quickly.
LOL! That’s true, CK. Well, if we lose it sure will be a long day’s journey into night won’t it?
Powell endorsed Obama simply because he is black..plain and simple. Since about 90% of blacks
are presumed to be voting for Obama, Powell didn’t want to be seen as the lonely black voting
for a white person.
But he has the right to choose his candidate…what really disturbs me is when he negatively
injects Sarah and the 2 supreme supposedly judges.
He’s really against a religious right party. Notice how he never mind the 2 judges Prez Bush
selected. All of a sudden he’s concern about future judges and one might ask WHY is he against
McCain choosing 2 SCOTUS judges. Could it be that all along Powell fooled the GOP by acting
like a conservative while all along he was a CLOSETED liberal?
Mr. Powell, for your information , I’m a long time voting strick party line democrat, but whoa, not this time. For the first time in my life I’ll be voting for a republican and mostly on party line.
For your info, Mr Powell, I have lost respect for you. Obama is not now, nor ever will be a
UNITER (as you put it) Obama in a true sense is a Hugo Chavez admirer and supporter thus
he is also a practicing Marxist. (Just key in to what both Nobamas have said). In my lifetime
Obama has been the worse in negative attacks, thus widening the dis-unity of america.
Obama, never met a payroll, never ran a business, never ran a city nor even a state. Yet the
MSM makes him akin to Allen Greenspan on the economy and a qualified , ready to take the helm Presidential candidate which I find totally naive. Sarah, yes, my Sarah, has more experience rapped in her little fingers than Obama has in his entire hollowed out brain.
Next is that we don’t know if Obama is legally authorized to run for POTUS. My hunch is that
he was born in Kenya then transported to Hawaii by his mother to make him a legal US citizen
and that’s why he doesn’t want to produce his real birth certificate. I do hope that the courts
settle this before the election. This could just be a Biden and ??? ticket where Biden could be
elected the next president.
Colin Powell certified Barack Obama for moderate Republicans. Powell is very respected and this is one endorsement that will matter. It even made the front page of the Salt Lake Tribune. This is a big deal out west, in Colorado, Nevada, Montana.
Obviously some folks consider my reading habits odd. Well, you folks better get something to immerse yourselves in for the next few months. Obama is on the verge of a landslide close to Reagan’s in 1980. Maybe superhero comic books might be appropriate for some.