Political Calculus

Al-Gore-rithm, n, ‘A mathematical operation which is repeated many times until it converges to the desired result, especially in Florida.’ (The Grapevine)

Ok, no one would confuse Algore with a mathematician, though he is a famous calculator who during the 90s would say just about anything any time it could please a voting audience. Then he was the toady par excellence who actually believed he “invented” the Internet and served as the model for Love Story. Now he’s scary (“BUSH BETRAYED THIS COUNTRY!!”) and huge; there’s a guy who never passes up a cheeseburger. But he’s part of the Democratic Party calculus, a huge factor in the denominator.

Another huge divisor is Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (what’s with these rotund Democrats?) who recently struck a Capital policeman, and not for the first time. According to her lawyer, McKinney’s only offense was “being a member of Congress while black.” She must be an embarrassment to rational Democratic Party leaders (Is that an oxymoron?) and she’s a pill of poison. Without 85% support among blacks, the Democrats have no chance for the presidency, and the NAACP and the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson love Cynthia dearly.

So where are the Democratic numerators? Who's got the props? Hillary Clinton, she’s the King (er Queen) isn’t she? And who loves the Clintons best? Why Hollywood, of course. But wait, depending on whom you talk to in Hollywood these days, Hillary Clinton is either too conservative, too polarizing, too famous, too stiff or — keep this to yourself! — too sexy.

I particularly love that last one, attributable to Ms. Sharon Stone, whose recent sex thriller ("Basic Instinct 2") is bombing faster than Cynthia McKinney. I think Hillary's fantastic, Stone said. But I think it's too soon for Hillary to run. This may sound odd, but a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. She still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that. It's too threatening. I do agree that Hill's is scary, but it’s not her sexiness that has me worried.

Back in Washington the mood has been sour lately so thoughtful Democrats provided a little levity by issuing their National Security Strategy.

The Democratic Plan to Protect America and Restore Our Leadership in the World is three pages long including a cover page. However, it is repeated in Spanish. Impressive! (Remember Dukakis)



The first Democratic strategy element is to: Rebuild a state-of-the-art military by making the needed investments in equipment and manpower so that we can project power to protect America wherever and whenever necessary. Sounds good so far since it is exactly what the Republicans have been doing. But for Democrats it is a substantial change for the Party that voted against virtually every major weapons system (the M1 tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Patriot missile, the B-2 bomber) that brought us victory in the Cold War, the Gulf War, and the march to Baghdad.

The Democrats pledge to Eliminate Osama bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaida, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban. Democrats pledge also to increase our human intelligence capabilities, again a welcome departure from past Democratic practices.

But the problem with the Democratic strategy is that it is no more than a set of goals, essentially the same as the Republican goals, but bereft of an actual strategy to achieve those goals. The Dem’s have nothing to offer in defense of the country or anything else; nothing, that is, but Al-Gore-rithms.